FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25270/07
by Juraj MIKITA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	Ljiljana Mijović, President,
	Ledi Bianku,
	Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Juraj Mikita, a Slovak national who was born in 1956 and lives in Košice. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 November 1991 the applicant’s legal predecessor lodged an action in a property dispute. The proceedings were finally concluded on 30 January 2009 when the Stará Ľubovňa District Court’s judgment became final.
On 22 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It ordered the responsible court to proceed with the case and awarded the applicant 90,000 Slovakian korunas in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. The applicant further alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
A.  Length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
On 4 October 2010 the Court received the Government’s unilateral declaration signed on the same day. 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 had been involved. They offered to pay to the applicant the sum of 4,800 euros (four thousand eight 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 suggested 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 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.
The applicant submitted no comments.

The Court reiterates that it may strike out an application or a part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) 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, under certain circumstances, it may do so on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
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 this complaint (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
It should therefore be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
B.  Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained of a violation of his property rights.
However, in the light of all the materials in its possession, the Court notes that the applicant has not shown that he had raised this issue, after having used the other remedies available, in a complaint to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

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 so far as it relates to the length of proceedings complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.	
	Fatoş Aracı	Ljiljana Mijović
	Deputy Registrar	President