FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8924/02 by Helena LAMPÁŠOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section), sitting on 9 January 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 , Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2002,

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 Lampášová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Považská Bystrica. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs M. Piro šíková , their Co-Agent.

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

On 5 June 1997 inspectors of the Slovak Commercial Inspectorate concluded that the applicant had not run her business in accordance with the requirements laid down in in the Consumer Protection Act of 1992.

On 1 July 1997 the Slovak Commercial Inspectorate , Department for the Trenčín Region , fined the applicant 2,000 Slovak ian korunas on that account . On 9 May 2000 the Directorate of the Slovak Commercial Inspectorate dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

On 9 June 2000 the applicant brought judicial proceedings before the Bratislava Regional Court contest ing the lawfulness of the above decision of 9 May 2000 . She alleged, inter alia , that the matter had become statute ‑ barred and requested that the decision be declared null and void.

On 29 June 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court transferred the case to the Supreme Court for reason s of jurisdiction.

In a letter posted on 22 January 2001 the applicant supplemented her action in that she alleged that she should have been pardoned pursuant to the Prime Minister ’ s decision on amnesty of 3 March 1998 and the President ’ s decision on amnesty of 14 December 2000 .

On 22 January 2001 the Supreme Court judge dealing with the case requested the applicant to pay a court fee and to submit a power of attorney within a ten-day time limit. The applicant was informed that the proceedings would be discontinued should she fail to comply with the court ’ s request .

In a letter of 31 January 2001 , the applicant requested the court to appoint an advocate to represent her in the proceedings as she was indigent. She also informed the court that she had fractured her leg and that she would therefore submit the declaration of means later . She submitted the relevant documents on 25 April 2001 .

On 1 August 2001 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings . By the same decision, the Supreme Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. It further rejected her request for appointment of an advocate on the ground that the action apparently lacked reasonable prospects of success.

The reasons for the Supreme Court ’ s decision read as follows:

“In her timely action , the plaintiff sought a finding that ‘ the decision of the Slovak Commercial Inspectorate No. P 229/3/08 was unlawful and therefore void ’ . The administrative offence which she had committed was statute-barred.

The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic invited the plaintiff, in a letter served on 25 January 2001, to eliminate those shortcomings in her action which could still be rectified and to pay the court fee of 1,000 Slovakian korunas. As the action had been lodged with the Bratislava Regional Court on 12 June 2000, [the applicant] could have eliminated the other rectifiable shortcomings in it within a two-month time-limit from the date of service of the decision given by the administrative authority which dealt with the case at last instance (Article 250b (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure), as it is only within this fixed time-limit ... that the scope of an action challenging an administrative decision can be extended (Article 250h of the Code of Civil Procedure). This means that the extension of the action ... by the applicant has not, in any event, eliminated the shortcomings in her action under Articles 247, 250, 42 and 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure; moreover, it has failed to do so within the statutory time-limit.

The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic therefore discontinued the proceedings pursuant to Article 250d (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

As in these circumstances the [applicant ’ s] action apparently lacked any prospects of success, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic did not appoint a counsel to represent the plaintiff; however, it exempted her from the obligation to pay a court fee.”

The Supreme Court ’ s decision was serve d on the applicant on 29 August 2001 .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention that she had been denied access to a court as the proceedings regarding her action of 9 June 2000 had been discontinued by the Supreme Court without appointing a lawyer to represent her.

T HE LAW

On 28 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Co-Agent of the Government:

“I, Marica Piro šíková , the Co-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 1,000 (one thousand) euros to Mrs Helena Lampášová 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 3 November 200 6 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant :

“I, Helena Lampášová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me the sum of 1,000 (one thousand) 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 (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