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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MikulAS DOLSKY v Slovakia - 57712/09 [2010] ECHR 1391 (7 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1391.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1391 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
57712/09
by Mikuláš DOLSKÝ
against
Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Giovanni
Bonello,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ján
Šikuta,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 October 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike part of the application out of the list of cases and to the applicant's reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Mikuláš Dolský, a Slovak national who was born in 1927 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Beňová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“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.
On 1 June 1998 the applicant lodged an action concerning his title to an apartment.
On 6 March 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's length of proceedings complaint.
On 20 May 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court found against the applicant. The Supreme Court declared the applicant's appeal on points of law inadmissible on 25 February 2010.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of proceedings and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
On 28 June 2010 the Court received the Government's unilateral declaration signed on the same day. The Government acknowledged the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant had been involved. They offered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to 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. They suggested 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 undertook to pay to the applicant the sum indicated above 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, they undertook 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 would constitute the final settlement of the case.
In a letter of 6 July 2010 the applicant disagreed with the amount set out in the Government's declaration.
The Court reiterates that it may strike out an application or a part thereof under Article 37 § 1(c) if
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also reiterates that, under certain circumstances, it may do so on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
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; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; and Fekiač and Fekiačová v. Slovakia, no. 39202/04, §§ 19-26, 10 November 2009).
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), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this complaint (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002). 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
It should therefore be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The applicant further complained that his rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated due to the length of proceedings.
However, in the light of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration 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 so far as it relates to the length of proceedings complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Giovanni Bonello
Deputy
Registrar President