BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
39026/10
Ladislav FILKA
against Slovakia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
10 May 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ineta
Ziemele,
President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2010,
Having
regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on
30 January 2012, as amended on 16 March 2012, requesting the Court to
strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s
reply to that declaration,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Ladislav Filka, is a Slovak national, who was born in
1956 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by
Mr M. Sobota, a lawyer practising in Nitrianske Rudno.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková, and their
Co-Agent, Mrs M. Bálintová.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- The
applicant replaced his late mother as plaintiff in proceedings
concerning the determination of shares in an estate. The proceedings
lasted from 11 June 1993 to 20 November 2008 at two levels of
jurisdiction. The first-instance court was prevented from
dealing with the case for approximately three years as it had to wait
for the outcome of a different set of proceedings.
- On
29 September 2009 the Constitutional Court found that the courts
involved had breached the applicant’s right under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded
4,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered
the courts concerned to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
COMPLAINT
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
the length of the proceedings in his case and that he did not obtain
appropriate redress at domestic level.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained about excessive length of the proceedings and
that the redress provided by the Constitutional Court was not
sufficient. 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 ...”
- By
letters dated 30 January 2012 and 16 March 2012 the Government
informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral
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 the applicant’s
status of the 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, Miroslava Bálintová, the Co-Agent of
the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of
Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay to the
applicant Ladislav Filka the sum of EUR 1,500 (one thousand five
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, plus
any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
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 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 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. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the
case.”
- In
a letter of 1 March 2012 the applicant expressed the view that the
sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was low.
- The
Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may
at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out
of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the
conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that
Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the
Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it
is no longer justified to continue the examination of the
application”.
- It
also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an
application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral
declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes
the examination of the case to be continued.
- To
this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the
light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the
Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey,
[GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA
Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02,
26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.)
no. 28953/03).
- The Court has established in a number of cases,
including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning
complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing
within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France
[GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Scordino v.
Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227,
ECHR 2006 , ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland,
no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Kuril v. Slovakia,
no. 63959/00, §§ 39-43, 3 October 2006; Rapoš
v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008;
or Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§
39-41, 4 November 2008).
- Having
regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s
declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed –
which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases given
that the applicant obtained partial redress at domestic level (see
also Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
93-98, ECHR 2006 V) – the Court considers that it is no
longer justified to continue the examination of the application
(Article 37 § 1(c)).
- Moreover,
in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the
clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied
that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the
Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of
the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
- In
view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the
list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s
declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the
modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to
therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in
accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele
Deputy Registrar President
