FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35604/04 by Daniela KRI Ž ANOV Á against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 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 Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 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, Ms Daniela Kri ž anov á , is a Slovak national who was born in 1959 and lives in Ko š ice . She wa s represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtá kov á , a lawyer practising in Ko š ice . The Goverrnment 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.

On 5 January 1996 the applicant ’ s husband filed an action with the Ko šice I District Court. He requested a divorce and a determination of the parental rights and obligations in respect of their two children born in 1981 and 1986 respectively.

After having taken several procedural measures, the District Court scheduled the first hearing for 19 November 1996. The plaintiff challenged the judge. The court of appeal dismissed the plaintiff ’ s request. The file was returned to the District Court on 13 February 1997.

In 1997 the District Court scheduled two hearings.

In 1998 the District Court decided to obtain the opinion of an expert in clinical child psychology. The plaintiff challenged the expert. A different expert was therefore asked to submit the opinion. In November 1998 the expert returned the file to the District Court as the plaintiff had refused to undergo an examination together with his son.

A hearing was held on 19 February 1999. The case was adjourned as further evidence needed to be taken with the help of an expert. The court informed the parties that it would impose a fine on anyone obstructing the taking of evidence. On 22 November 1999 the expert informed the District Court that the plaintiff had disregarded five summonses sent by her.

In March 2000 the District Court asked a school for information.

On 17 May 2000 the District Court adjourned the case. An expert opinion was required as regards the parents ’ ability to educate their children.

On 16 February 2001 the District Court again asked the school and a public authority for information.

On 28 March 2001 the case was adjourned as the parties had not appeared.

On 16 May 2001 the court granted the divorce. The couple ’ s son, born in 1986, was placed in the custody of the father. The applicant appealed against the decision concerning the parental rights. The file was transmitted to the court of appeal on 19 October 2001. On 1 August 2002 the court of appeal quashed the relevant part of the first-instance judgment.

On 4 November 2002 and 27 January 2003 the District Court adjourned the case. On 13 February 2003 an expert was asked to submit an opinion. It was submitted on 12 August 2003. On 12 September 2003 the plaintiff submitted his comments on the expert opinion. In October 2003 he requested that further evidence be taken. The District Court dismissed that request in November 2003. On 12 December 2003 the plaintiff appealed; on 13 December 2003 he challenged the judge involved for bias. On 6 January 2004 the file was submitted to the court of appeal.

On 4 March 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Ko Å¡ice I District Court had not violated the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The decision stated that the need to obtain several expert opinions had had an impact on the length of the proceedings. Unlike her ex ‑ husband, the applicant by her conduct had not significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court had dealt with the case in an appropriate manner, but it had been confronted with the plaintiff ’ s obstructive behaviour. Repeatedly ordering expert opinions had unduly prolonged the proceedings.

On 22 September 2004 the Supreme Court refused to exclude two judges of the Regional Court . On 29 October 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff ’ s request for exclusion of a District Court judge. On 4 November 2004 the District Court dismissed the request for an injunction.

On 2 May 2005 the case was transferred to a different judge of the District Court. On 16 June 2005 the file was transmitted to the Regional Court for a decision on the plaintiff ’ s appeal against the decision of 19 August 2003 on the fee to be paid to an expert. The Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on that issue on 31 January 2006.

On 2 October 2006 the case was adjourned due to the absence of the parties. Between 20 November 2006 and 23 April 2007 the District Court scheduled five hearings in the case.

The proceedings are pending.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

On 2 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Government ’ s Agent:

“ 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 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred euros ) to Ms Daniela Križ an ová 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 a ny 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 20 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Daniela Križanová , the applicant , note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 8,500 (eight 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 a ny 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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it sh ould be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President