FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13876/05 by Peter BO ŠNÁ K against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 August 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President, Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä , judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 April 2005,

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 11 June 2007 and the applicant ’ s statement submitted on 28 June 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Peter Bošnák , is a Slovakian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Trnava . He was represented before the Court by Mr T. San á k, a lawyer practising in Trnava . The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were r epresented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková .

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

1. Proceedings on the applicant ’ s action of 17 October 1994

On 17 October 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava II District Court. He challenged his dismissal from his job and claimed arrears of salary.

On 6 March 1995 the District Court delivered a partial judgment concluding that the applicant ’ s contract of employment was still in force. On 6 October 1995 the Bratislava City Court upheld that judgment.

On 16 December 1996 the District Court determined the amount of the applicant ’ s arrears of salary. On 5 March 1999 the Regional Court of Bratislava quashed that judgment.

Subsequently the District Court took further evidence in accordance with instructions given by the court of appeal. An expert opinion was ordered.

On 14 August 2002 the District Court decided on the applicant ’ s claim for arrears of salary. On 17 October 2002 the defendant appealed.

The Regional Court in Bratislava decided on the appeal on 10 November 2004. The decision on the point in issue became final on 5 January 2005.

2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

On 2 December 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Bratislava II District Court had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

In a letter dated 16 July 2004 the applicant extended his complaint. He alleged that both the Bratislava II District Court and the Regional Court in Bratislava had violated his above-mentioned right.

On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the applicant ’ s complaint about the violation of his right by the Bratislava II District Court. The decision did not mention the applicant ’ s complaint about the conduct of the Regional Court of Bratislava.

On 21 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava II District Court had violated the applicant ’ s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The decision stated that the case was not complex. The parties had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. In particular, the District Court had scheduled thirteen hearings in 1996 ten of which the applicant had not attended as he had been working abroad. The fact that the defendant had made various procedural motions had also prolonged the proceedings. While it was true that the overall length of the proceedings was considerable, the District Court was only responsible for delays totalling thirteen months. Those delays amounted to a violation of the applicant ’ s right in issue.

The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 10,000 (the equivalent of 250 euros at that time) to the applicant in just satisfaction. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant ’ s costs incurred in the constitutional proceedings.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

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 11 June 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government acknowledge both the applicant ’ s status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which he was involved.

I, Marica Piro šíková , the Agent of th e Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to Mr Peter Bo šnák . 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 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 a letter delivered to the Court on 28 June 2007 stated that the sum of EUR 3,000 did not constitute appropriate just satisfaction for the violation of his rights.

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 ); Swe dish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ( (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006 ) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ( ( striki ng 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 ; RiÅ¡ková 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 application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above ; and also Haran v. Turkey , no. 25754/94, judgment of 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 the application ( Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention .

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President