CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2025

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 55206/22 Beáta JANOČKOVÁ and Daniel KVOCERA against Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30   April   2025 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2022, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 January 2025 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicants, Ms Beáta Janočková and Mr Daniel Kvocera, are Slovak nationals, who were born in 1978 and 2014 respectively and live in Blažice and Bratislava. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr P. Konvičný, a lawyer practising in Košice. 2.     The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová. 3.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 4.     The applicants complained about the length and effectiveness of proceedings for the enforcement of an assisted contact order ( rozhodnutie o asistovanom styku ), the authorities’ alleged failure to take the necessary measures to ensure that assisted contact, and the effectiveness of the domestic remedy provided by the Constitutional Court. They relied on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. 5.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 15 January 2025 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 that the Court strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “The Government, having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic of 26 June 2022, file no. II. ÚS 167/2022, and the Court’s judgment of 8 February 2024 in Janočková and Kvocera v. Slovakia , no. 39980/22 acknowledge the unreasonable duration and ineffectiveness of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved and the course of which raises questions from the point of view of compliance with the positive obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure contact between the applicants. I, Miroslava Bálintová, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay to Beáta Janočková and Daniel Kvocera the sum of 2   340 EUR (two thousand three hundred and forty euros) for each of them. The Government would suggest that the above information might 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 applicants the declared sums within three months from the date of notification of the decision. In the event of failure to pay these sums 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 settlement of the case.” 6.     By a letter of 7 February 2025 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration, on the grounds that the amounts offered by the Government were inadequate and insufficient given the circumstances of the case which remain unchanged. 7.     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 applications”. 8.     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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. 9.     To this end the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26   June   2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no.   28953/03, 18   September   2007). 10.     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 and the right to family life (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII; Obluk v. Slovakia , no. 69484/01, § 75, 20 June 2006; and Janočková and Kvocera v. Slovakia , no. 39980/22, § 42, 8   February 2024). 11.     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)). 12.     Moreover, in light of the aforementioned considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, including the Court’s judgment adopted in the applicants’ previous case (see Janočková and Kvocera , cited above), the Court is satisfied that resp ect 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 ). 13.     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). 14.     The Court also has the discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (Rule 43   § 4 of the Rules of Court). The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under   Rule 43   § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among others,   Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Georgia v. Georgia   (striking out), no. 72874/01, §   33, 21   April 2015, and   Meriakri v. Moldova   (striking out), no. 53487/99, §   33, 1   March 2005). In the present case, having regard to the documents in its possession, to its case-law and to the amounts already proposed by the Government, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly the sum of 250   euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable in this respect to the applicants. 15.     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 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; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly within three months, in addition to the sums contained in the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, EUR 250 (two hundred and fifty euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses; (b)   that 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 May 2025.     Liv Tigerstedt   Georgios A. Serghides   Deputy Registrar   President