FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KUMMER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

(Application no. 32133/11)

JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction - striking out)

STRASBOURG

27 March 2014

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kummer v. the Czech Republic,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Mark Villiger, President,
	Angelika Nußberger,
	Boštjan M. Zupančič,
	Ganna Yudkivska,
	Vincent A. De Gaetano,
	André Potocki,
	Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 32133/11) 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 a Czech national, Mr Vladimír Kummer (“the applicant”), on 18 May 2011. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Netušil, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vít A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.
2.  In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2013 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect on account of the increasingly intrusive restraints having been applied on the applicant during his short-term detention at a police station (Kummer v. the Czech Republic, no. 32133/11, 25 July 2013, §§ 56-73). The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural aspect since the subsequent investigation of the applicant’s ill-treatment had not complied with the requirements of an effective investigation (Kummer, cited above, §§ 80 - 88).
3.  Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction of CZK 5,040 (EUR 198) in respect of pecuniary damage for the injuries he had sustained at the police station, CZK 100,000 (EUR 3,935) for non-pecuniary damage (Kummer, cited above, § 90) and CZK 4,800 (EUR 189) for the cost of the expert medical report which he had commissioned.
4.  Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the parties to submit, within three months of the date on which the judgment was to become final, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (Kummer, cited above, point 4 of the operative provisions).
5.  On 14 and 27 January 2014 respectively the parties informed the Court that on 16 December 2013 an agreement on compensation had been concluded between the parties, namely the applicant and the Ministry of the Interior on behalf of the Czech Republic, by virtue of which the applicant had been paid the amounts of CZK 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage, CZK 5,040 (EUR 198) in respect of pecuniary damage relating to the applicant’s injuries and CZK 13,648 (EUR 537) with regard to the costs of the proceedings on the applicant’s action for damages lodged with the Prague 7 District Court. In return, the applicant had withdrawn his action in full and further declared having no other claims vis-à-vis the Czech Republic in relation to his application submitted to the Court.
6.  To that effect the applicant submitted to the Court a copy of the written agreement signed on his behalf by his representative and the director of the Legal Department on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior.
THE LAW
7.  Following its principal judgment the Court has been informed that an agreement has been reached between the Government and the applicant with respect to the latter’s claims under Article 41 of the Convention.
Having regard to its terms, the Court finds this agreement 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 or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Consequently, considers it appropriate to strike the remainder of the case out of the list (Article 37 (b) of the Convention and Rule 43 § 3).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 March 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Mark Villiger
	Registrar	President