CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6ADF1EA6 { width:167.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2666/09 Petr SASKA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   June   2013 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   André Potocki,   Aleš Pejchal, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 January 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Petr Saska, is a Czech national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Prague. He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Petříček, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.   The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party. The application was communicated to the Government. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 9   January 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. “The Government hereby acknowledge that in case no. 2666/09, there has been a   violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of an excessive length of judicial proceedings to which the applicant was a party at national level. The Government offer to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros). The Government note in this context that according to Section 3(4)(d) of Act no. 586/1992, on income tax, payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court or stemming from a friendly settlement of the case before the Court is not subject to personal income tax. This sum 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 Convention. 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 periods plus three percentage points.” They further requested the Court to strike out the application. The Court received a letter dated 13 February 2013 from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. THE LAW The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore 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. In view 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 pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.   Stephen Phillips   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President