BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF DIALLO v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
(Application
no. 20493/07)
JUDGMENT
(just
satisfaction – friendly settlement)
STRASBOURG
26
April 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Diallo v. the Czech Republic,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Dean Spielmann, President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Mark
Villiger,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika
Nußberger,
André Potocki, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 April 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 20493/07) against the Czech
Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by two Guinean nationals, Mr Ibrahima Diallo (“the
first applicant”) and Mr Mamadou Dian Diallo (“the second
applicant”), on 15 May 2007.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr J. Větrovský, a lawyer
with Asociace pro právní otázky migrace, a
non-governmental organisation based in Prague. The Czech Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.
A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.
- The
Court gave judgment on 23 June 2011. In that judgment it found a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article
3 of the Convention as none of the domestic authorities involved in
the applicants’ asylum and expulsion proceedings examined the
merits of their claim that there was a real risk of ill-treatment in
their country of origin and because there were no remedies with
automatic suspensive effect available to them. The Court awarded the
first applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Regarding the second applicant it held that the question of the
application of Article 41 was not ready for decision, and accordingly
reserved it. It invited the Government and the applicants to submit
their written observations on the matter within three months and, in
particular, to notify it of any agreement that they might reach (see
Diallo v. the Czech Republic, no. 20493/07, § 94 and
point 5 of the operative provisions, 23 June 2011).
- In
a letter of 21 February 2012, the Government informed the Court that
the parties had reached an agreement on the question of just
satisfaction.
THE LAW
- On
21 February 2012 the Court received a friendly settlement declaration
signed by the parties under which the second applicant agreed to
waive any further claims against the Czech Republic in respect of the
facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the
Government to pay him 5,000 euros, which will be free of any taxes
that may be applicable, to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage as well as costs and expenses. 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 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. The payment will
constitute the final resolution of the case.
- The
Court takes formal note of the above agreement. It observes that its
purpose is to put an end to the dispute. It further observes that
under the terms of the settlement thus reached the second applicant
will be paid compensation for the prejudice he has suffered, which is
in line with the Court’s case-law.
- Having
examined the terms of the agreement reached, the Court considers that
it is equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules
of Court and that it is based on respect for human rights as defined
in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of
the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the case should be struck out of the Court’s
list (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and Rule 43 §
3).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Takes
formal note of the agreement between the parties and the
arrangements made to ensure compliance with the undertakings given
therein (Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
- Decides to strike the remainder of the case out
of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 April 2012, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean Spielmann
Registrar President
