SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29768/96
by Nabeel Abdullah AL MULLA
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (2 Section), sitting on 22 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 April 1995 and registered on 9 January 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
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, Nabeel Abdullah Al Mulla, is a businessman, born and living in Kuwait. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Michaelides, a lawyer practising in Limassol.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant bought from “A. PIERIS ESTATES LTD” (hereinafter “the company”) certain immovable properties in Cyprus. That company was then wound up as it was unable to meet its obligations.
On 18 December 1982 the applicant obtained a judgment from the District Court of Limassol permitting him to register a mortgage on a plot of the company’s land in order to secure his claim against it. The applicant registered the judgment in the Land Registry Office in the form of a memorandum and applied to the District Court of Limassol for an order of sale of the property.
On 14 May 1987 the applicant obtained a District Court order for the sale of the plot. On 18 March 1988 the applicant registered the order as a writ of immovables.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant applied to the Cyprus Ombudsman complaining about the failure of the State authorities to execute the District Court’s judgment. In his report dated 29 December 1994, the Ombudsman revealed that the Attorney General had advised the Land Registry Office not to execute the judgment because a block of flats had been built on the plot and therefore its sale would prejudice the property rights of the new buyers who had bought their flats before the registration of the applicant’s mortgage.
At the time of lodging the application, the District Court’s order had not been executed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained that the non-execution of the Limassol District Court’s judgment breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The application was communicated to the respondent Government and, after receiving the parties’ observations, a planned hearing was postponed pending settlement negotiations between the parties.
In October 2000 the Government informed the Court that an Official Liquidator had been appointed who was expected to effect certain payments to the applicant in November and December 2000. They invited the Court to adjourn the proceedings in order to give the liquidator time to make these payments which would result in the withdrawal of the application.
The President of the Court agreed to various extensions.
In a letter of 19 December 2001, the applicant’s representative submitted the following request:
“I hereby apply for leave to withdraw the ... application with reservation of rights.
The Official Receiver has appointed a Liquidator in the matter and has undertaken to attend to the matters of A. Pieris and the claims of Mr Al Mulla.
In the circumstances Mr Al Mulla has agreed to withdraw his recourse without prejudice and to allow time to the Official Receiver and the Liquidator to carry out their mandates under the Law”.
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant no longer intends pursuing his application and that the factual basis of the application is in the process of being resolved (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require the further examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). It therefore grants the applicant’s request to withdraw his application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy