by Helena ANTALOVÁ and Ondrej ANTAL
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The application was lodged by Mrs Helena Antalová and her husband Mr Ondrej Antal. The applicants are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1946 and 1943 respectively and live in Rimavská Sobota. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in their civil action had lasted an unreasonably long time.
On 7 and 23 October 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay them 5,300 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. That sum will be 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.
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.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President