FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34161/05 by Vojtech KESZELI against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President, Mr J. Casadevall , 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 16 September 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vojtech Keszeli, is a Slovak national who was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr s M. Piro šíková.

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

1. Proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s action against a bank

On 31 May 1994 the applicant sued a bank in a commercial dispute before the Bratislava I District Court. On 4 July 1995 the case was transferred to the Regional Court in Bratislava which had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

On 31 March 1998 the Regional Court asked the applicant to pay court fees. On 23 June 1998 the proceedings were discontinued for the applicant ’ s failure to pay court fees. On 24 August 1998 that decision was quashed as the applicant had paid the fees in the meantime.

On 2 October 1998 and 30 July 1999 the applicant modified his action. On 21 January 2000 he withdrew his action in part.

On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for exclusion of a judge newly appointed to deal with the case.

The Regional Court held a hearing on 14 August 2000.

On 19 December 2000 the Supreme Court granted the request of the judge dealing with the case for his exclusion.

On 19 February 2001 the case was assigned to a different judge. That judge failed to proceed with the case despite the instructions of the President of the Regional Court . On 26 February 2002 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged that judge.

On 21 August 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for exemption from the obligation to pay court fees in respect of his request for an injunction. On 30 June 2003 the Supreme Court quashed that decision. On 13 February 2004 the Regional Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees.

On 24 February 2004 the applicant challenged the judge. On 20 July 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed that request. It also upheld the Regional Court ’ s decision of 13 February 2004 concerning court fees. On 2 September 2004 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. It was dismissed on 30 September 2005.

In the meantime, on 29 July 2005, the Regional Court delivered a judgment on the merits. The applicant appealed. On 7 February 2006 the Supreme Court discontinued the appeal proceedings as the applicant had not paid court fees. The applicant challenged that decision. On 4 October 2006 he was asked to file his appeal on points of law in accordance with the formal requirements.

The proceedings are pending before the court of cassation.

2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

On 2 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant ’ s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case was not complex. The applicant by his conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The case had been pending before the Regional Court for nearly 8 years. During that period the Regional Court had remained inactive for more than 4 years.

The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 (the equivalent of 1,212 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction. It ordered the Regional Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant ’ s costs.

On 6 July 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had again violated the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time during the period following the delivery of its above finding of 2 June 2003. The decision stated that the applicant by his many procedural motions had contributed to the length of the period under consideration. The Regional Court had remained inactive for approximately 7 months. The proceedings were pending for more than 11 years and the Regional Court had been dealing with the case over a period of 9 years. Such a long period was clearly inappropriate.

The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 20,000 (the equivalent of 522 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction. It ordered the Regional Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant ’ s costs.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (i) the proceedings concerning his action had lasted an excessively long time and (ii) his right to judicial protection had been violated in that the Regional Court had not proceeded with his action in an appropriate manner .

THE LAW

On 30 April 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 2,300 (two thousand three hundred euros) to Mr Vojtech Keszeli 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 the same day the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Vojtech Keszeli, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 2,300 (two 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 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.

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President