FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42531/06
by Jozef ŠUGRA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jozef Šugra, is a Slovak national who was born in 1923 and lives in Žilina. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
1. Civil proceedings
On 15 May 1998 the applicant together with other plaintiffs challenged a contract of sale before the Žilina District Court.
On 31 December 1998 the Žilina Regional Court, upon appeal, quashed the District Court’s decision to issue an interim measure.
On 22 February 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim and the judgment was confirmed by the Regional Court on 13 April 2006.
2. Constitutional proceedings	
On 30 March 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Žilina District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 20,000 (the equivalent of 498 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the duration and outcome of the proceedings. The applicant invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
On 22 July 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Marica Pirošíková, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to Mr Jozef Šugra with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum 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 resolution of the case.”
On 2 July 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Jozef Šugra, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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 its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In 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.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza
	Registrar	President