SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 525/04 by Libuše KARBUSOVÁ against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr R. Türmen , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2003 ,

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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Libuše Karbusová, is a Czech national who was born in 1954 and lives in Karlovy Vary .

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

The applicant obtained custody of the child of he r marriage . By a judgment of the District Court of 9 January 1995 , upheld by the Regional Court on 30 June 1995 , the applicant ’ s former husband was ordered to pay monthly maintenance of CZK 1,000 (EUR 33) in respect of the child , with effect from 1 August 1992 . On 20 August 1997 the District Court increased the maintenance to CZK 1,500 (EUR 50) per month , allowing the applicant ’ s former husband to pay the outstanding maintenance for the past period in monthly instalments.

On 10 March 1999 the District Court, on the applicant ’ s action of 30 September 1998 , modified its previous judgment , increasing the monthly maintenance to CZK 3,850 (EUR 124) with effect from 1 August 1998 . It allowed the applicant ’ s former husband to pay the outstanding maintenance for the past period in monthly instalments.

On 25 March 1999 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance court ’ s judgment and returned the case to the District Court which, on 24 November 2000 , decided to increase the maintenance to CZK 4,000 (EUR 129) per month with effect from 1 September 1998 , allowing the applicant ’ s former husband to pay the outstanding maintenance for the past period in monthly instalments.

On 31 May 2001 the District Court supp lemented its judgment.

On 28 January 2002 the Regional Court , on the appeal of the applicant ’ s former husband of 12 January 2001 , upheld the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the payment of the maintenance for the period from 1 September to 30 November 2000 . It further quashed the District Court ’ s judgment to the extent that it concer ned the maintenance due after 1 December 2000 .

Between 4 March 2002 and 16 January 2003 , the District Court took a number of procedural steps.

On 15 September 2003 it delivered a new judgment in which it fixed the obligation of the applicant ’ s former husband to pay monthly maintenance of CZK 4,000 in respect of the child with effect from 1 December 2000 without, however, allowing the defendant to pay the outstanding maintenance by monthly instalments.

On 1 3 April 2004 the Regional Court , on the appeal of the applicant ’ s former husband of 24 November 2003 , upheld the first-instance judgment in respect of the increase in maintenance. It further ordered the defendant to pay, by 31 July 2004 , the outstanding maintenance for the period from 1 December 2000 to 31 March 2004 . The judgment became effective on 14 June 2004 .

As the applicant ’ s former husband did not comply with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant claimed the enforcement of the sum which he still owed her. It appears that the execution proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINT S

Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant originally complain ed that the maintenance proceedings have lasted an unreasonably long time, and that the judgments delivered in the se proceedings have remained unexecuted.

THE LAW

The Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Vít Schorm, Agent of the Government of the Czech Republic , declare that the Government of the Czech Republic offer to pay 3,000 euros to Libuše Karbusová 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 Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, 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 the 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.”

The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Libuše Karbusová, note that the Government of the Czech Republic are prepared to pay me the sum of 3,000 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 Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, 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 the Czech Republic 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 finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Dec ides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President