Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20156/18
Alica DANTSITSOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 January 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Dmitry Dedov, President,
Alena Poláčková,
JolienSchukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2018,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
She was represented by Ms L. Gálová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the unreasonable duration of the civil proceedings and the fact that the applicant had not obtained redress at domestic level. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applicationout of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, TahsinAcar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, 12 June 2012).
Noting 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 – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
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 and of the arrangements 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 February 2019.
Liv Tigerstedt Dmitry Dedov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
| Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
|
Date of receipt of
Government’s declaration |
Amount offered by the Government to the applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 20156/18
23/04/2018 |
AlicaDantsitsová
04/07/1953 |
05/10/2018 | 720 |
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply