CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF2EF8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sDDA8C945 { width:196.98pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEAFE4EBD { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s498FB5AC { width:15.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8DB3563B { width:13.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s9E0B9211 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s88ABD027 { width:24.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s78E29942 { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE11D7E78 { width:15.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD22E9FFC { width:13.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s14D74799 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s3796C6C { width:24.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 14 May 2018 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Application no. 67393/17 Vladimír SEKEREŠ against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on   12   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Dmitry Dedov, President,   Alena Poláčková,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on the date indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The details regarding the applicant are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings was communicated to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”). THE LAW After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a   view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of criminal proceedings. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook 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 applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (in   respect of Slovakia see, for example, Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, 30   April 2007). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amount awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). In the light of the above considerations, 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 may 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 and of the arrangements 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 3 May 2018.     Liv Tigerstedt   Dmitry Dedov Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any Amount offered by the Government for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i] 67393/17 07/09/2017 Vladimír Sekereš 02/04/1977 Ivan Syrový Bratislava 12/02/2018 15/03/2018 1,080 [ [1] ]         [ [1] ] Rectified on 14 May 2018: the amount was EUR 1,200. [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.