SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19883/05 
by Josef MUSIL 
against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa, President
 Mr A.B. Baka
 Mr R. Türmen
 Mr K. Jungwiert
 Mr M. Ugrekhelidze
 Ms D. Jočienė, 
 Mr D. Popović, judges
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 August 2003,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Josef Musil, is a Czech and Swiss national who was born in 1915 and lives in Eschert (Switzerland). The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, Ministry of Justice.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 23 October 1995 the applicant brought restitution proceedings in the Blansko District Court (okresní soud) against Z. On the next day, he requested the court to adopt a preliminary measure prohibiting Z. from disposing of the property concerned.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINT 

The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the Convention that his restitution action had not been dealt with fairly and within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

The Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Vít Schorm, Agent of the Government of the Czech Republic, declare that the Government of the Czech Republic offer to pay 7,500 euros to Josef Musil 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 converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, 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 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 Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Josef Musil, note that the Government of the Czech Republic are prepared to pay me the sum of 7,500 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 converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, 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 the Czech Republic 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 finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. Dollé  J.-P. Costa 
 Registrar President

MUSIL (NO. 2) v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION


MUSIL (NO. 2) v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION