FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29792/08
by Marián SLOVÁK
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	Lech Garlicki, President,
	Ján Šikuta,
	Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Marián Slovák, a Slovak national who was born in 1945 and lives in Cífer. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On 30 April 1998 the applicant lodged a claim for damages and review of an administrative decision. The proceedings are still pending. On 4 March 2008 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him the equivalent of 1,537 euros (at that time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings before the civil courts. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 3 August 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The Government acknowledged both the applicant's victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant has been involved. They offered to pay to the applicant the sum of 3,500 euros (three thousand five hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of his right under the Convention. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. In the event of the Court's decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertook to pay to the applicant the sum indicated above within 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, they undertook 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 would constitute the final settlement of the case.
In a letter of 6 September 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was low and that in case of its acceptance the Court itself would act contrary to his rights.
The Court recalls 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 recalls 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 will examine carefully the declaration 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).
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; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V and Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
	Fatoş Aracı	Lech Garlicki
	Deputy Registrar	President