European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30838/04
by Tatjana ŠIDLOVÁ
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,

and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 August 2004,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Tatjana Šidlová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Proceedings concerning the action of 19 November 1999

On 19 November 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action against a housing co-operative with the Bratislava IV District Court.

On 1 March 2002 the District Court requested the applicant to pay court fees.

Several hearings were scheduled before September 2003, but were adjourned for reasons attributable to the applicant, the plaintiff or the judge.

Meanwhile the applicant repeatedly modified, clarified and extended her submissions on her own initiative.

On 5 February 2004 the District Court requested that the applicant clarify her action. She complied with the request on 26 February 2004.

On 2 November 2006 the District Court ruled on a part of the applicant’s action.

The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court on 31 January 2007.

The District Court held several hearings in 2008. The proceedings are still pending before the District Court.

2. Constitutional proceedings

On 9 June 2004 the Constitutional Court, after having appointed a legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the constitutional proceedings, found that the Bratislava IV District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The Constitutional Court held that the complexity of the case could not justify the length of the proceedings. The applicant’s submissions were of such character and intensity that she had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court was found responsible for a period of inactivity totalling 3 years and 7 months.

The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 15,000 (the equivalent of 375 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delays in the proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy in that respect. She also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she could not afford a qualified lawyer in the constitutional proceedings and that the decision of the Constitutional Court had been unjust.

THE LAW

On 19 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Marica Pirošíková, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to Mrs Tatjana Šidlová with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable at the date of settlement in case of payment prior to 1 January 2009, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

On 15 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Tatjana Šidlová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable at the date of settlement in case of payment prior to 1 January 2009, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President