CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s495E66C1 { width:192.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 5317/14 Marek SNOPKO against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   December 2015 as a Committee composed of:   George Nicolaou, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 January 2014, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 June 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Marek Snopko, is a Slovak national, who was born in   1976 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by   Mr   P.   Ďurček, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings concerning dissolution of joint marital ownership which were initiated before the Bratislava IV District Court on   14 August 2008. The proceedings have been held before two levels of   jurisdiction and are still pending. In relation to the length of the impugned proceedings, the Constitutional Court had rejected the applicant’s complaint on 29 May 2013. The application has been communicated to the Government . THE LAW After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of   25 June 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to   make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by   the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in   accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “The Government acknowledge the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay to       Mr Marek Snopko the sum of EUR 3,960 (three thousand nine hundred and sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The Government would suggest that the above information be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within the three months from the date of notification of the decision. 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. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.” By a letter of 19 August 2015, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum offered was inappropriate. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an   application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by   a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of   the case to be continued. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of   one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Scordino   v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Rapoš v.   Slovakia , no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008; Bič   v.   Slovakia ,   no.   23865/03, §§ 39-41, 4   November 2008 or Komár   v.   Slovakia , no.   25951/06, §§ 30-33, 26 October 2010). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be   restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 7 January 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar   President