CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .sA485F9B0 { width:13.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s5EA978D4 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s99671D1 { width:16.88pt; display:inline-block } .s79F05022 { width:243.83pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sB06CCEC3 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:left } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } SECOND SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 57321/00 by Ingrid BREIEROVÁ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2000, 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 partial decision of 8 October 2002, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Ingrid Becker (formerly Breierová), is a Czech national who was born in 1966 and lives in Vienna (Austria). She is represented before the Court by Mr P. Strnad, a lawyer practising in the Czech Republic. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   V.   Schorm. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 1 April 1992 the mother of the applicant filed an action for the restitution of a plot of land, nationalised in 1952. On 15 September 1992 the Prague 10 District Court (obvodní soud) rejected the action. In 1993, the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a further hearing. On 23   August 1995 the applicant's mother died. The applicant and her sister took over the restitution proceedings as her heirs. On 20 May 1997 the District Court rejected the restitution claims, holding that the property could not be returned in natura as a building had been constructed on the land after its expropriation, and was therefore excluded from restitution. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs could claim financial compensation. On 15 September 1998 the Municipal Court upheld the first instance judgment. On 16 July 1999 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) , claiming a violation of her right to a fair hearing. On 4   November 1999 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) dismissed the constitutional appeal as being manifestly ill-founded. COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 30 April 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by both of the parties:       [Translation of the Government]   “The Government of the Czech Republic, represented before the European Court of Human Rights by their Agent Mr Vít Alexander Schorm (“the Government”), and Mrs. Ingrid Becker (Breierová) (“the Applicant”), represented by her counsel Mr.Pavel Strnad,   declare that:   1.   they have reached a friendly settlement of the case No. 57321/00 – Ingrid Breierová and others v. the Czech Republic (“the Application”); 2.   the Government will pay to the Applicant a total amount of 96,000 Czech crowns (CZK) [Around 2,957 euros], within three months from the date of the notification of the decision delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), to a bank account that the Applicant will specify to the Ministry of Justice without undue delay upon request; 3.   the above-mentioned sum is to cover any damage that might have been caused to the Applicant by the Czech Republic through its authorities, including legal expenses; 4.   if the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the designated time of three months from the date of the notification of the Court's decision then, from the expiry date, a simple interest on the amount shall be paid at an annual rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points; 5.   the Applicant waives any further claims against the Czech Republic based on the facts of the proceedings before the Court on the basis of the Application, and regards this friendly settlement as the final settlement of the Application; 6.   neither the Government nor the Applicant will request that the case be referred to the Court's Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court's decision under Article 39 of the Convention; 7.   the friendly settlement of the Application according to this declaration may be subject to approval by the Government at its ministerial meeting; the Applicant takes due note of this reservation.”   The Government have also informed the Court about the decision made by the Ministry of Justice not to have recourse to point 7 of the declaration. 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 Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President