CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8DE92DF4 { width:40.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s112BE179 { width:210.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 4385/04 by Miloš JEŘÁBEK and Bohumil MÍČA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 January 2003, 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 applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Miloš Jeřábek and Bohumil Míča, are Czech nationals who were born in 1936 and 1948 respectively, and who live in Brno. Before the Court they are represented by Mr Pavel Šturma, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, Ministry of Justice.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were employed by the Uranium Research Enterprise. They contracted an occupational disease. They were paid compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of earnings during their sick leave. They also received a supplementary payment to compensate for their loss of earnings. The applicants, however, claimed compensation in respect of their injuries and consequential financial losses based on the fact that their employer had violated safety regulations. On 14 August 1984 the first applicant brought an action for damages in the Žďár nad Sázavou District Court ( okresní soud ) against his employer. On 7 March 1985 the second applicant lodged a similar action. The proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS   Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants originally complained of the length of the civil proceedings. They further invoked Article 13 as no effective domestic remedy had been available for their complaints about the delays in proceedings. THE LAW The Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Vít Schorm, Agent of the Government of the Czech Republic, declare that the Government of the Czech Republic offer to pay 11,000 euros to Miloš Jeřábek and 11,000 euros to Bohumil Míča with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 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 the 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 received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “We, Miloš Jeřábek and Bohumil Míča, note that the Government of the Czech Republic are prepared to pay each of us the sum of 11,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 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 giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” 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