FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 70977/01 by Ioan Kornelij KOMANICKÝ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 June 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 6 May 2001,

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, Mr Ioan Kornelij Komanický , is a Slovak national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov . 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 concerning the applicant ’ s action of 25 May 1998

On 25 May 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Bardejov District Court. He claimed that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment in his employment and that his contract of employment with the legal successor of an authority which had employed him and which had ceased to exist was still valid.

Between October 1998 and January 1999 the parties made written submissions to the District Court.

The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 16 February 1999. It was postponed to 8 April 1999. The applicant made written submission to the court on 30 April 1999. One of the defendants replied to those submissions on 30 June 1999.

On 21 February 2000 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the District Court in Bardejov stating that illness prevented him from participating in court hearings and from dealing with issues relating to judicial proceedings in which he was involved. The applicant requested that that information should be transmitted to all judges of the District Court.

On 28 March 2003 the District Court scheduled a hearing in the case for 24 April 2003. On 22 April 2003 the applicant excused himself from the hearing. He pointed out that the court should not decide on the case in his absence. On 24 April 2003 the court adjourned the case because of the applicant ’ s absence.

On 18 September 2003 the applicant informed the court that he would not attend the hearing scheduled for 22 September 2003. On the latter date the case was adjourned.

As the judge dealing with the case considered himself biased, the case was transferred to a different judge on 24 September 2003.

On 16 April 2004 the case was adjourned as the parties failed to appear.

The next hearing was held on 14 June 2004. The applicant was present. The case was adjourned as the court considered it necessary to consult files in different cases. At that time, the Regional Court in Pre Å¡ov had those files .

According to a note of 1 March 2005 one of the files in issue was examined by the Supreme Court.

The District Court obtained one of the relevant files on 7 July 2005. On 15 September 2005 it asked for a different file to be submitted to it.

On 10 March 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action. On 14 June 2006 and on 16 June 2006 the applicant appealed.

On 2 March 2007 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.

2. Constitutional proceedings

On 24 August 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Bardejov had violated the applicant ’ s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The decision stated that the case was of a certain complexity. The applicant by his conduct had substantially contributed to the length of the proceedings. Unjustified delays had occurred as a result of the District Court ’ s failure to proceed with the case between 30 June 1999 and 28 March 2003. On 14 June 2004 the case had been adjourned as it had been necessary to obtain files from a different court. The District Court had obtained those files after a year and a half.

The Constitutional Court held that the finding of a violation of the relevant constitutional right together with the order that the District Court should prevent any further delay in the case provided sufficient just satisfaction to the applicant. As the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in a significant manner, the Constitutional Court dismissed his claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as his request for reimbursement of the costs incurred in the constitutional proceedings.

On 18 March 2007 the applicant sent a new complaint to the Constitutional Court alleging that both the District Court in Bardejov and the Regional Court in Pre Å¡ov had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

On 17 April 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

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

2. Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

3. Finally, the applicant alleged that he had had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards the alleged violation of his rights under Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 18 January 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 4,300 (four thousand three hundred) euros to Mr Ioan Kornelij Komanický 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 judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 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 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Ioan Kornelij Komanick ý , the applicant , note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me the sum of 4,300 (four thousand three 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 judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 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 C e ntral 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 of 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 r easons, the Court unanimously

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

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President