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 } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCB4FB6B2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:42.29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; padding-left:7.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sCA617EFF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:42.29pt; margin-bottom:6pt; padding-left:7.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 66065/01 by Jarmila KUCHAŘOVÁ 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   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 September 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 declaration by the respondent Government and the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Jarmila Kuchařová, is a Czech national who was born in 1925 and lives in Plzeň. She was represented before the Court by Mr   O.   Zaoral, a lawyer practising in Czech Republic. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   V.   Schorm. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 15 May 1992 the applicant filed with the Domažlice District Land Office (okresní pozemkový úřad) a claim for the restitution of her mother's former property. On 1 September 1992 the District Land Office suspended the proceedings pending the   submission of certain technical documents by the Domažlice Land Register (katastrální úřad) . The applicant was only informed of this procedural step on 16 November 1993. On 2 June 1994 the applicant requested the District Land Office to deal with her claim within a short period of time. On 22 July 1994 she was informed that her case would not be given priority. On 3 April 1995 four witnesses gave their statements regarding the applicant's claim. On 29 June 1995 the District Land Office decided that the applicant was not the owner of the property claimed by her, the legal conditions for its restitution not being fulfilled. On 14 July 1995 the applicant appealed to the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud ), which, on 23 January 1997, after holding a public hearing, upheld the aforesaid administrative decision. On 10 April 1997 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) in which she alleged a   violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and of her property rights. On 28 April 1998 the applicant's lawyer requested the Constitutional Court to inform him about the stage reached in the proceedings. On 31 March 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional appeal as being manifestly ill-founded, endorsing the reasons given by the ordinary domestic courts. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and the unfairness of the proceedings. THE LAW On 30 April 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by both 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 Jarmila Kuchařová (“the Applicant”), represented by her counsel Mr Otakar Zaoral, declare that: they have reached a friendly settlement of the case No. 66065/01 – Jarmila Kuchařová v. the Czech Republic (“the Application”); the Government will pay to the Applicant a total amount of 110,000 Czech crowns (in words “one hundred ten thousand Czech crowns”) [Around 3,422 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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 informed the Court of the decision of 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 application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President