CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1828B727 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32E480FE { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .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 } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; 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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sFCBFF887 { width:236.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 72063/01 by Marek MYDŁOWSKI against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6   July   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 Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Marek Mydłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zgorzelec (Poland). 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 2 February 1992 the applicant was a victim of a car accident in the Czech Republic, caused by an Austrian citizen. After returning home from hospital, he was granted an invalidity benefit under Polish law. On 22 July 1992 he applied for compensation to the Austrian Insurance Company in Linz (Bundesländer) . On 6 November 1992 the Czech Insurance Company (hereinafter “the CIC”) (Česká pojišťovna) informed the applicant that it had been authorized by the Austrian Insurance Company to pay him the compensation. On 29 June 1993 the applicant was partly compensated, especially for the damage to his car. On 11 November 1994 the applicant brought an action for damages before the Liberec District Court (okresní soud) against the Austrian citizen responsible for the accident and requested that the CIC join the proceedings as a third party. According to the Government, the action was brought on 16   November 1994. After various inquiries and hearings, on 16 November 2000 the court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 2,319.82 Zloty (487.68 EUR) in damages for injury to his health and dismissed the remainder of the claim. On 19 and 28 December 2000 respectively, the applicant and the CIC appealed against the judgment. On 27 February 2002 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) modified the District Court’s judgment in that it granted the applicant compensation of 2,050 Zloty (430.96 EUR) as compensation for the reasonable costs of medical treatment. Concerning that part of the claim related to compensation of the applicant’s diminished social capacity, loss of income and earning capacity, the court remitted the case to the District Court before which the case is still pending. On 17 June 2002 the CIC lodged an appeal on points of law (dovolání), claiming that the Regional Court had made an incorrect legal assessment of the merits of the case and reached an incorrect decision. On 17 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the CIC’s appeal on points of law as being introduced outside the legal time-limit. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention he further complained that the CIC had considered his medical treatment to have been above-standard. THE LAW On 30 April 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by both of the parties: “The Government of the Czech Republic, represented before the European Court of Human Rights by its Agent Mr. Vít Alexander Schorm (“the Government”), and Mr. Marek Juliusz Mydlowski (“the Applicant”) declare that: 1. they have reached a friendly settlement of case No. 72063/01 – Marek Juliusz Mydłowski v.   the Czech Republic (“the Application”); 2. the Government will pay to the Applicant a total amount of 6.500 € (in words “six thousand five hundred euros”), within three months from the date of the notification of the judgement 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 of the Czech Republic 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 judgment 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 judgement 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 also informed the Court about the decision made by the Ministry of Justice not to have recourse to point 7 of the above 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.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President