FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42555/04 by Vladimír 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 9 November 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 10 May 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 Vladimír 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 of 2000

On 12 December 2000 the Trnava Housing Cooperative ( bytové družstvo ), which owns the flat in which the applicant lives, brought an action against him in the Trnava District Court ( Okresný súd ). They alleged that the applicant owed money for services associated with the use of the flat and sought an order for payment.

On 15 December 2000, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued a payment order ( platobný rozkaz ) against the applicant for the amount claimed.

On 29 December 2000 the applicant successfully appealed ( protest ). The order was ex lege vacated and the matter fell to be determined in ordinary proceedings.

On 3 January 2001 the applicant requested that he be allowed to lodge with the court the amount specified in the payment order pending the outcome of the proceedings in order to avoid potential late payment penalties in the event of his losing the case. The District Court granted the request on 14 January 2001.

On 11 October 2001 the District Court granted the applicant ’ s request for an exemption from payment of court fees.

On 9 July and 15 August 2002 the applicant filed counterclaims. He submitted that it was in fact the plaintiff who owed him money and sought an order for repayment.

Between 28 March and 28 November 2002 the District Court held 5 hearings.

On 4 December 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to bring his counterclaims into line with the applicable procedural requirements. The applicant responded on 4 February 2004.

On 11 April 2005 the District Court declared the applicant ’ s counterclaims inadmissible holding that he had failed to correct them as requested.

On 22 February 2005 the District Court added a file concerning another case (see below) to the file in the present case because they were linked.

On 15 and 24 May 2005, respectively, the applicant appealed against the decision of 11 April 2005 and the District Court transmitted the appeal to the Trnava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) for a decision.

On 30 June 2005 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court on the ground that the latter had failed to verify when the contested decision had been served on the applicant.

On 28 April 2006 the Regional Court q uashed the decision of 11 April 2005 and remitted the matter to the District Court.

The proceedings are still pending.

2. Constitutional complaints concerning the civil action of 2000

On 3 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution about the length of the proceedings in his action of 2000.

On 11 May 2005 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) found that there had been a violation of 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 Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to deal with the case expeditiously, awarded the applicant 25,000 Slovakian korunas [1] by way of just satisfaction for non ‑ pecuniary damage and ordered reimbursement of his legal costs.

The Constitutional Court found no justification for the length of the proceedings in view of their subject-matter. The applicant had responded late to some of the court ’ s requests and his counterclaims had been unclear. The delays thereby caused were imputable to him. The District Court had adjourned two of the hearings without any apparent reason and it had been inactive without any objective justifi cation in the period between 28 November 2002 and 22 February 2005. Although it could not be said that the District Court had been inactive outside this period, it had failed to deal with the case efficiently.

3. Civil action of 2003

On 16 May 2003 the Housing Cooperative brought a separate action against the applicant seeking an order for payment of another sum of money owed for services associated with the use of the flat.

On 23 May 2003 the District Court allowed the action and issued a payment order against the applicant.

On 20 June 2003 the applicant successfully appealed, the order was vacated and the matter fell to be determined in ordinary proceedings.

On 23 August and 27 September 2004, respectively, the plaintiff submitted observations in reply to the applicant ’ s appeal and the applicant filed comments on those observations.

On 5 August 2004 and 16 February 2005 the District Court held 2 hearings.

On 23 February 2005 the District Court ruled under Article 112 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the action should be examined jointly with the action of 2000.

4. Constitutional complaint concerning the action of 2003

On 17 February 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings in the 2003 action.

On 10 March 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.

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 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against in respect of the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

A. Length of the proceedings

The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on 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 10 May 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 Vladimír Sika the sum of EUR 2,500 (two 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.

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 24 May 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 Zemanová 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 the use by the applicant of Article 127 of the Constitution to obtain redress for any continuing delay in the proceedings.

B. The remaining complaint

The applicant also complained of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

In so far as the complaint has been substantiated, the Court has found no appearance of a violation of the applicant ’ s rights protected under Article 14 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).

It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

C. Article 29 § 3 of the Convention

In view of the above considerations, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 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 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 25,000 is equivalent to approximately 700 euros (EUR).