THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 49377/14 Margita LUKÁČOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 31 May 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller , President, Johannes Silvis , Alena Poláčková , judges,

and Stephen Phillips , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2014 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 June 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Ms Margita Lukáčová , is a Slovak national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Košice Sh e was represented before the Court by Mr J. Chmura , a lawyer practising in Košice .

The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M s M. Pirošíková .

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings concerning the validity of a contract, which had been initiated before the Košice I District Court on 23 September 2003 (under the file no. 15 C/111/2003 ) and which he entered in 2009 as a legal successor on the part of the original defendant.

On 5 March 2014 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and ordered the District Court to proceed with the matter and to reimburse the applicant ’ s legal expenses. It did not award her any just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

The proceedings have been held before two levels of jurisdiction and are currently still pending before the District Court.

The application was communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 June 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this 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 of the victim within the meaning of the Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.

I, Marica Pirošíková , the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that t he Government offer to pay to Ms Margita Lukáčová the sum of EUR 4,050 (four thousand fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

The Government would suggest that the above information 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 the three months from the date of notification of the decision. 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 the final settlement of the case.”

By a letter of 29 July 2015 , the applicant indicated that s he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum offered was inappropriate. By a letter of 30 December 2015 the applicant informed the Court about further developments of her case at the domestic level and insisted on her previous objection to the sum offered by the Government.

The Court re iterates 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”.

It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 has examined the declaration carefully 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; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia , its practice concerning compl aints 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 Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; RapoÅ¡ v. Slovakia , no. 25763/02 , §§ 32-34 , 20 May 2008; Bič v. Slovakia , no. 23865/03, §§ 39-41 , 4 November 2008 or Komár v. Slovakia , no. 25951/06, §§ 30-33, 26 October 2010 ) .

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed at the material time – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers th at it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

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 ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and for the period covered by the unilateral declaration provided by the Government, that is until 16 June 2015 . This is without prejudice to the applicant ’ s possible claims at the domestic level or before the Court in relation to the length of the proceedings after that date.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 June 2016 .

             Stephen Phillips Helen Keller Registrar President