[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Margita HORVATHOVA v SLOVAKIA - 42850/04 [2008] ECHR 1101 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1101.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1101

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42850/04
by Margita HORVÁTHOVÁ
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2004,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Margita Horváthová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Trnava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“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 10 June 1996

On 10 June 1996 the applicant together with two other plaintiffs asked the Trnava District Court to substitute its consent for that of third persons under an obligation to conclude a contract of sale with them.

On 18 June 1999 the Trnava District Court found in favour of the applicant. On 27 April 2000 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the decision. It remitted the case to the Trnava District Court on 27 June 2000.

On 1 June 2001 the Trnava District Court delivered its second judgment. On 30 September 2002 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the decision and again remitted the case to the Trnava District Court on 11 November 2002.

Subsequently, the Trnava District Court collected further evidence, delivered several procedural decisions (e.g. allowed changes to the parties to the proceedings) and on 4 August 2004 and 18 November 2005 held a hearing. It further dismissed the plaintiffs´ request for an interim measure and on 9 August 2006 discontinued the proceedings in respect of the action lodged by the other two plaintiffs.

In June 2008 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending before the Trnava District Court.

2. Constitutional proceedings

On 3 September 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Trnava District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The Constitutional Court noted that the applicant exclusively complained about the proceedings before the Trnava District Court.

The Constitutional Court held that the case was to a certain extent complex from the factual but not from the legal point of view and that the applicant's conduct had to a certain extent contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Trnava District Court was responsible for several delays.

The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 30,000 (the equivalent of 715 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Trnava 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 31 July 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 4,000 (four thousand euros) to Mrs Margita Horváthová 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 5 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Margita Horváthová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,000 (four thousand 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).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President