FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14704/16
Louis BLEHEIN
against Ireland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 April 2017 as a Committee composed of:
André Potocki, President,
Síofra O’Leary,
Mārtiņš Mits, judges
and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 2016,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 January 2017 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 Louis Blehein, is an Irish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Nenagh, Co. Tipperary.
The Irish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. White of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings brought by him, and under Article 13 of a lack of an effective remedy in domestic law for this complaint.
The application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the duration of proceedings brought by him to obtain compensation following a ruling by the Supreme Court that his constitutional rights had been infringed. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, he argued that the proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time. He further submitted, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that there was no effective remedy in domestic law for this complaint.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 19 January 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Respondent acknowledges that the issues raised in this application are the subject of well-established case-law of the Court, Rooney v. Ireland [Committee], no. 32614/10, 31 October 2013.
The Respondent acknowledges – by way of a unilateral declaration – that the length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard was incompatible with the reasonable time requirement contained in Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the Convention.
If the Court strikes the case from its list, the Respondent is willing to pay the applicant € 7,000 to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses within three months from the date of notification of the decision of 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 Respondent undertakes 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.”
By a letter of 23 February 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration, reiterating that in domestic law there was no remedy for excessive length of proceedings, and criticising aspects of the proceedings before the High Court and the decision that it took on his case.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
It also reiterates that, in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including cases brought against Ireland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003‑X (extracts); and O’Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017.
Anne-Marie DouginAndré Potocki
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy