European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 50143/06
by Ján STUPKA
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 2006,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ján Stupka, is a Slovak national who was born in 1931 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš. The Slovak Government (“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 applicant’s action of 21 May 1990

On 21 May 1990 the applicant filed an action with the District Court in Liptovský Mikuláš.

On 3 November 1995 the District Court delivered an interim judgment in the applicant’s favour. On 8 May 1996 the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica upheld that judgment.

In a judgment of 4 June 1997 the District Court determined the point in issue. On 29 October 1997 the court of appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.

The District Court held a hearing on 29 April 2002.

On 16 October 2003 the District Court decided to obtain an expert opinion. It was submitted on 8 July 2005. The parties submitted their comments on the opinion on 21 November 2005 and 28 February 2006.

On 10 May 2006 the District Court decided on the fee of the expert. On 25 May 2006 the applicant appealed. On 31 November 2006 the Regional Court in Zilina modified the first-instance decision.

A hearing scheduled for 5 March 2007 was adjourned at the applicant’s request. Another hearing scheduled for 28 May 2007 was cancelled as the applicant’s lawyer was ill.

On 14 December 2007 the expert was asked to complement the opinion.

A hearing was scheduled for 23 May 2008.

The proceedings are pending.

2. Constitutional proceedings

On 14 November 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Liptovský Mikuláš had violated the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex from the factual but not from the legal point of view. The applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. It found several shortcomings in the way in which the District Court had dealt with the case. The overall duration of the proceedings (more than 13 years) was excessively long.

The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 60,000 (the equivalent of 1,460 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 16 June 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 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Ján Stupka 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 Slovak korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, 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 6 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Ján Stupka, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 5,500 (five thousand five hundred 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 Slovak korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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 Lech Garlicki
Registrar President