SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9624/03 
by Přemysl SEDLÁČEK 
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 I. Cabral Barreto
 Mr K. Jungwiert
 Mr V. Butkevych
 Mr M. Ugrekhelidze
 Mrs A. Mularoni, 
 Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 March 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 Přemysl Sedláček, is a Czech national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Brno. 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.

The applicant’s family and Mr and Ms H. were co-owners of an apartment building. Since a part of the house used by Mr and Ms H. was larger than their share in the building and they refused to pay any financial compensation for it, the applicant’s father lodged, on 1 June 1988, a civil action against them for unjust enrichment.

On 25 September 2002 the Municipal Court partly granted the applicant’s action, finding that the defendants had used a part of the property which was larger than their share. In its judgment, the court did not refer to any expert opinion. The judgment became effective on 3 October 2003.

COMPLAINTS 

The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. He also complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against in the proceedings on the grounds of his non-involvement in the former communist regime. He claimed to prove this by the court’s allegedly incorrect legal opinions and an expert opinion. He states that the courts did not respect the principle of equality of arms.

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 8,000 euros to Přemysl Sedláček 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, Přemysl Sedláček, note that the Government of the Czech Republic are prepared to pay the sum of 8,000 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

SEDLÁČEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION


SEDLÁČEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION