FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6159/13
Jorge Manuel CASTANHEIRA BARROS
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 January 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 October 2014 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
1. The applicant, Mr Jorge Manuel Castanheira Barros, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Coimbra.
2. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney-General.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The application complained under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, about the length of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant in which he sought the annulment of a decision of the Ministry of Justice with regard to his career progression. The applicant alleged that the fact that he had been prevented to progress in his career had constituted a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention as to the length of proceedings
5. The applicant’s complaint concerning the length of proceedings was communicated to the Government.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 October 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The declaration provided as follows:
“Je soussignée Mme M. F. da Graça Carvalho, procureur générale adjoint, déclare que le gouvernement portugais offre de verser à M. Jorge Manuel Castanheira Barros, la somme de 4.550,00 (quatre mille cinq cent cinquante euros) couvrant tout préjudice moral, et la somme de 500,00 (cinq cent euros) couvrant l’ensemble des frais et dépens, au titre de la requête enregistrée sous le no 6159/13, portant sur le délai raisonnable.
Ces sommes seront exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable et seront payées dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de radiation rendue par la Cour sur le fondement l’article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention. Le paiement vaudra règlement définitif de la cause.
À défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif des sommes en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage.
Le Gouvernement reconnaît qu’en l’espèce il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention.”
8. By a letter of 10 November 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
9. 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”.
10. 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.
11. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
12. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Portugal, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII ; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑.V. ; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005 ; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007 ; regarding Portugal see Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal, no. 33729/06,
10 June 2008).
13. 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)).
14. 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).
15. 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).
16. Accordingly, the complaint covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration should be struck out of the list.
B. Other alleged violations
17. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention the applicant also complained of the lack of an effective remedy with regard to the length of proceedings. In the light of the above unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 13 does not raise a separate issue.
18. Finally, the applicant complained that the fact that he had been prevented to progress in his career constituted forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained is of within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
19. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike a part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 November 2015.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy