THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
49236/07
Teodor HAMMEL
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ineta
Ziemele,
President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Teodor Hammel, is a Slovak national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Ms H. Kováčiková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Following the failure by the parties to reach a friendly settlement the Government informed the Court, by letter of 15 July 2011, that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the applicant’s status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.
I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant Mr Teodor Hammel the sum of EUR 4,400 (four thousand four hundred euros). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of his right under the Convention.
The Government would suggest that the above information be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within the three months from the date of notification of the decision. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to apply 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. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.”
In a letter of 30 August 2011 the applicant informed the Court that the Government’s proposal and the terms of their declaration were acceptable for him. The applicant agreed to the case being struck out of the Court’s list on the ground that he and the Government had reached a friendly settlement.
THE LAW
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.
Marialena Tsirli Ineta
Ziemele
Deputy Registrar President