CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 juillet 2007

.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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s7AA46F6C { width:213.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44039/05 by Jozef ZLATOHLAVÝ against Slovakia lodged on 26 October 2005 The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T. L. Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 October 2005, 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jozef Zlatohlavý, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Prešov. He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Komková, a lawyer practising in Prešov. The respondent Government are represented by Ms M. Pirošíková, their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Action On 22 July 1993 the applicant brought an action against his sister seeking the dissolution of their co ‑ ownership of a family house and land. Two judgments were given but quashed on appeal. On 25 October 2004 the Prešov District Court ( Okresný súd ) dissolved the co-ownership, ruled that the applicant was the owner, ordered that he pay an amount of money to the defendant in compensation and ruled that the defendant’s claim for compensation for the applicant’s use of the property would be determined in a separate set of proceedings. On 15 March 2006 the District Court supplemented the judgment of 25   October 2004 by adding a ruling rejecting the applicant’s claim for his investments in the property to be taken into account in the calculation of the settlement. Both parties appealed. On 15 June 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 25   October   2004, as amended on 25 October 2004. On 7 November 2006 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the defendant’s appeal on points of law. 2.     Constitutional complaint On 30 March 2005, on the applicant’s complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitutional Court, ordered that the District Court proceed with the matter promptly, awarded the applicant 15,000 Slovakian korunas [1] by way of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and ordered reimbursement of his legal costs. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. THE LAW On 13 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the Government: “I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Jozef Zlatohlavý 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 Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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 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.” On 27 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Jozef Zlatohlavý, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred 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 Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a 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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas B ratza   Registrar   President   [1] SKK 15,000 is equivalent to approximately 400 euros (EUR).