CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 août 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC2C80E1C { width:180.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 26695/05 by Rastislav TIMKO against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   August 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 2005, Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention), Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Rastislav Timko, is a Slovak national who was born in 1946 and lives in Lučenec. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 4 August 1995 the applicant filed an action for distribution of marital property with the Košice-okolie District Court. On 1 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay as the overall length of proceedings was excessive. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 10,000 (the equivalent of 255   euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs. The District Court scheduled hearings for 19 April 2005 and 6   September   2005. During that period the court of appeal upheld the first-instance decision to impose a procedural fine on the applicant. The expert submitted a supplement to his opinion. On 6 October 2005 the District Court decided on the merits of the case. On 21 November 2005 the applicant appealed. The file was submitted to the court of appeal on 5 December 2005. On 13 March 2007 the District Court delivered a supplementary judgment concerning the costs of the proceedings. The applicant appealed on 22 March 2007. On 17 April 2007 the Regional Court in Košice upheld the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The decision became final on 25 June 2007.   COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 20 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Marica Pirošíková, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,400 (four thousand four hundred euros) to Mr Rastislav Timko 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 Slovak 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 20 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Rastislav Timko, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,400 (four thousand four 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 Slovak 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 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.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President