CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8C440983 { width:110.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC7380B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 21375/24 M.HOUSE S.R.O. against Slovakia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27   February 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24   July 2024, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant organisation’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant organisation was represented by Ms M. Lichnerová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The applicant organisation’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings and absence of an effective domestic remedy in that regard were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”). The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicant organisation agreed to waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 LAW 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 the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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 in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 March 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Georgios A. Serghides   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of administrative proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of registration Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 21375/24 24/07/2024 M.HOUSE s.r.o. 2018   Monika Lichnerová Bratislava Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - The Constitutional Court segmented the proceedings and declined jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings before the administrative body, directing the applicant to lodge an action for inactivity of the administrative body before the administrative court. Such practice was found at odds with the Court’s approach to examining the overall length of the proceedings, reiterated in two judgments concerning a similar situation ( Balogh and Others v. Slovakia , no. 35142/15, §§   54 ‑ 58, 31 August 2018, and Balogh and Others v. Slovakia , nos.   7918/19 and 43062/20 [Committee], 16 December 2021) 16/01/2025 28/10/2024 3,300 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant organisation. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant organisation.