CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAEEC8BC4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sFAC30B25 { width:190.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 37077/02 by Adéla ADAMOVÁ and Alois HRUBÝ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   July   2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2002, 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 applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Adéla Adamová and Alois Hrubý, are two Czech nationals who were born in 1942 and 1939 respectively and live in Kozmice. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Brož, a lawyer practising in Brno. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Between 24 March 1992, when the applicants lodged a restitution action, and October 2004, when the Opava District Court’s (okresní soud) final decision became effective, the case was dealt with three times by the District Court, twice by the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) and once by the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) and Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) . COMPLAINTS The applicants originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive and, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they had no effective remedies at their disposal in respect of the delays. THE LAW On 23 May 2005 the Court received two identical declarations signed by the first and second applicants on 13 and 16 May 2005 respectively:   “We note that the Government of the Czech Republic are prepared to pay ex gratia the total sum of 6,100 euros to Mrs Adéla Adamová and Mr Alois Hrubý with a view to securing a   friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, to be converted into Czech crowns at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 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. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the Czech Republic in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicants have reached.   ...”   On 1 June 2005 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:   “I declare that the Government of the Czech Republic offer to pay ex gratia the total sum of 6,100 euros to Mrs Adéla Adamová and Mr Alois Hrubý with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, to be converted into Czech crowns at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 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 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 takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Naismith   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President