FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 63588/13 and 29611/14
José Diogo ESTEVES RODRIGUES NOBRE SEQUEIRA against Portugal
and Sara Maria PINTO CARRASQUEIRA SEQUEIRA against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 August 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 2 October 2013 and 8 April 2014 respectively,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 March 2015 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant in the first case is Mr José Diogo Esteves Rodrigues Nobre Sequeira and the applicant in the second case is Ms Sara Maria Pinto Carrasqueira. The applicants, husband and wife, are Portuguese nationals who were both born in 1971 and live in Lisbon.
The applicants, were represented by Mr J. J. Ferreira Alves, a lawyer practising in Matosinhos. They complained about the length of the civil proceedings in which they were involved.
The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney-General.
The applications had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
Given that the present applications concern the same facts and complaints and raise related issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings to which they were a party and the lack of an effective remedy with regard to it.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 31 March 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“Je soussignée, M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Procureur général adjoint, déclare que le gouvernement portugais offre de verser, conjointement, à M. José Diogo Esteves Rodrigues Nobre Sequeira et à Mme Sara Maria Pinto Carrasqueira Sequeira, la somme de 6.500,00 euros (six mille cinq cent euros) couvrant tout préjudice moral et la somme de 1.000,00 (mille euros) couvrant les frais et dépens, au titre des requêtes enregistrées sous les nºs 63588/13 et 29611/14.
Ces sommes seront exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable et seront payées dans les trois mois suivant la date de 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.
A 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.”
By a letter of 28 April 2015, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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 applications”.
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from 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).
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‑....; 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).
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 applications (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 applications (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 cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 September 2015.
André WampachMirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy