FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 25088/04 by Vladim í r SIKA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

M r J. Casadevall , President , Mr G. Bonello

Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

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

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 June 2007 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 Vladim í r Sika, is a Slovak national who was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Civil action

On 7 December 1995 the applicant brought an action in the Trenčín District Court ( Okresný súd ) seeking a judicial ruling declaring him to be the owner of a plot of land situated in the cadastral area of Drietomá and registered under parcel number 3700/2. He directed the action against an individual who was at that time registered in the Land Registry as the owner.

In letters of 2 May and 4 July 1996, respectively, the District Court requested the applicant to state whether he wished to maintain his action and to submit three copies of it.

On 2 June 1998 the applicant reformulated the action, seeking to challenge the outcome of inheritance proceedings in which the defendant had acquired his title. He further modified the subject-matter of the action on 22 July 1998.

Between 9 July 1998 and 29 July 1999 the District Court requested the applicant four times to provide further and better particulars.

The applicant responded on 20 August 1998 and 6 October 1999 and submitted that he should not be required to pay court fees.

On 1 October 1999 the applicant appeared before the District Court and was instructed by a judge on how to formulate the action correctly.

On 7 October 1999 the applicant amended the action in that he claimed a declaratory judgment that he was the owner of the land.

On 17 October 2000 the District Court requested information from the local District Office concerning the land with a view to determining the amount of court fees to be paid. The District Office responded on 26 February 2001 and the applicant paid the court fees on 15 March 2001.

On 30 April 2001 the District Court requested the defendant ’ s observations in reply and ordered that a court file concerning the contested inheritance proceedings be attached to the court file in the present case.

A hearing called for 20 November 2001 had to be adjourned due to the absence of the defendant and the fact that it had not been possible to serve the summons on him in accordance with the usual means.

The District Court scheduled further hearings for 30 January and 6 March 2002 and requested that the summons be served on the defendant by the police. Both hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not appear and the police had been unable to effect service as the defendant was not at his habitual address in Slovakia . According to the information available the defendant was living abroad.

On 25 June 2003 the District Court held a hearing at which it appointed an official representative ( opatrovník ) for the defendant to represent his interests in the proceedings. The hearing was adjourned until 1 October 2003 with a view to obtaining further evidence.

On 3 September 2003 the applicant identified his witnesses.

Further hearings were scheduled for 2 February and 23 June 2004.

In a judgment of 3 November 2004 the District Court found that the applicant owned a 1/3 share in the land in question. He had inherited this share from his parents. The remaining two thirds had been inherited and were owned by the applicant ’ s siblings.

The applicant appealed against the judgment of 3 November 2004 contesting clerical errors in it and arguing that he was the sole owner of the whole of the property.

On 10 November 2005 the Trenčín Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for re-examination. It found a major procedural error in connection with the appointment of the defendant ’ s official representative.

The Court was informed on 16 October 2007 that the action had been dismissed at first instance on 24 January 2007 and on appeal on 6 September 2007 .

2. Complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution

On 14 November 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings in his action with the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) .

On 3 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant ’ s right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The District Court was ordered to deal with the case expeditiously, to pay the applicant SKK 10,000 [1] by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse his legal costs. The Constitutional Court found that the subject-matter of the proceedings was not particularly complex. Although the applicant ’ s initial submissions had been unclear, this had not made it impossible for the District Court to deal with the case in an organised and efficient way. However, the District Court had been inactive without any objective justification between November 1999 and January 2001 and between March 2002 and April 2003 (i.e. a total of approximately 27 months).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in his action had been excessive .

2. The applicant also complained under Article 1 to Protocol No. 12 to the Convention that he had been discriminated against in respect of the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

A. Length of proceedings

The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

By letter dated 28 June 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government acknowledge both the applicant ’ s status of 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 Vladim ír Sika the sum of EUR 6,000 (six thousand 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 might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case out 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. This sum will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 final settlement of the case.”

The applicant in his written reply dated 22 August 2007 rejected the Government ’ s initiative essentially on the ground that the compensation proposed was insufficient.

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”.

The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005 IX).

The Court has established in a number of cases 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 ....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia , no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rišková v. Slovakia , no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia , no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).

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 the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; Haran v. Turkey , no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002 and also Felbert v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 14081/03, 19 June 2007 and Zemanov á v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32494/05 , 11 September 2007). 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 ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.

The Court would point out that, since the applicant ’ s civil claim is still pending before the domestic courts, the Court ’ s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant of Article 127 of the Constitution to obtain redress for any continuing delay in the proceedings.

B. Remaining complaint

The applicant also complained of discrimination contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.

The Court observes that Protocol No. 12 has not been ratified by the Slovak Republic (see Sika v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 2132/02 , 10 May 2005 ).

It follows that this complaint in respect of Slovakia is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

C. Article 29 § 3 of the Convention

In view of the above conclusions, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Cou rt 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 concerns the length of the proceedings complaint, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible .

T.L. Early Josep Casadevall Registrar President

[1] SKK 10 ,000 is equivalent to approximately EUR 300.