FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 4567/04 by Helena KORBOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President, Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , 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 23 January 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Helena Korbová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1960 and lives in Spi šská Nov á Ves. She was represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajt á kov á , a lawyer practising in Ko š ice. 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 on divorce and parental rights and obligations

On 1 June 1998 the applicant petitioned for divorce from her husband. She also claimed that their four minor children should be placed in her custody and that her husband should be obliged to contribute to their maintenance.

On 5 November 1998 the District Court in Spi šská Nová Ves granted the divorce. It allowed the applicant ’ s claim for custody of the children and ordered the father to pay maintenance.

On 25 January 1999 the Regional Court in Ko Å¡ice quashed the first-i nstance judgment.

On 21 June 1999 the District Court appointed an advocate to represent the applicant at her request. It took further evidence.

On 30 September 1999 the Regional Court dismissed a request filed by her husband for exclusion of the first-instance judge.

The District Court adjourned the case in February 2000 as the defendant was ill. After having taken documentary evidence it held four hearings between 2 June 2000 and 27 September 2000. A procedural fine was imposed on the defendant. The Regional Court exempted the defendant from the obligation to pay it on 19 January 2001.

In a judgment given on 25 April 2001 the District Court granted the divorce and gave the applicant the right to educate the children. Both the applicant and her husband appealed.

On 15 October 2001 the Regional Court in Ko Å¡ice upheld the first-instance decision on the divorce and custody of the children. It quashed the part of the first-instance judgment which concerned the maintenance of the children after the divorce.

The District Court scheduled a hearing for 6 February 2002.

On 26 March 2002 the applicant ’ s ex-husband challenged the judge. The court of appeal dismissed his objection on 30 August 2002.

On 20 November 2002 the District Court delivered a judgment against which the applicant appealed.

On 31 March 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 20 November 2002 to the extent that it concerned the children ’ s maintenance after the parents ’ divorce. It quashed the part of the first-instance judgment which concerned the outstanding maintenance payments and the costs of the proceedings.

In April, May and December 2003 the applicant submitted further information to the District Court at the latter ’ s request.

On 23 January 2004 the District Court gave a judgment on the outstanding issues which became final on 4 March 2004.

2. Constitutional proceedings

On 17 December 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the District Court in Spi šská Nová Ves had violated her right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

On 9 July 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The decision stated that, as regards the applicant ’ s petition for divorce and her request for custody of her children, the final decision had been given on 15 October 2001. At the moment when the applicant had filed her complaint, the proceedings concerned only her claim for maintenance. That issue had been determined by the judgment of 20 November 2002 which the court of appeal had upheld on 31 March 2003. The Constitutional Court therefore considered that it was required to examine exclusively the period between 12 November 2001 (when the judgment on divorce had become final) and 20 November 2002. During that period the District Court had held two hearings and had obtained extensive documentary evidence. There was no indication that the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated during that period.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 14 August 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the Government:

“I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia EUR 3,500 (three thou sand five hundred euros) to Mrs Helena Korbová 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 Slovakian 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 22 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the representative of the applicant:

“I, Helena Korbová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred 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 Slovakian 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).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Cou rt unanimously

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

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President