FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35150/02
by GENEMP TRADING LTD
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the parties’ correspondence,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Genemp Trading Ltd, is an offshore company registered in Cyprus. It was represented before the Court by S. Drakos & Associates, lawyers practising in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 October 1994 the applicant company lodged a civil action (no. 9560/94) before the District Court of Nicosia against the registered branch of a Yugoslavian bank in Cyprus, with which it had its banking accounts (Genemp Trading Ltd v. Beogradska Banka DD Cobu). The applicant sought compensation in respect of damage suffered as a result of acts and/or omissions of the defendant bank.
In its decision of 23 February 2000 the District Court of Nicosia found in favour of the defendant bank and dismissed the applicant’s action.
On 3 April 2000 the applicant filed an appeal against the first instance decision invoking a total of eighteen grounds, challenging the reasoning and conclusions of the district court.
On 27 February 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the first instance decision and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. As regards the admissibility and assessment of evidence by the district court, the Supreme Court stated that since it considered that the applicant had not presented convincing argumentation showing that the findings or conclusions of the first instance court were contrary to common logic or were not justified by the evidence, it would not intervene in this respect.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Cypriot courts.
2. The applicant also complained of the fairness of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In this respect the applicant complained of the following:
(a) due to the fact that the domestic courts had not followed the established rules governing pleadings and considered issues that were not included in the parties’ pleadings, it was deprived of the opportunity to have a hearing and present its arguments.
(b) the applicant challenged the reasoning and findings of the domestic courts absolving the defendant company from liability. In this connection, it maintained that the domestic courts failed to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties and of significant issues raised in the proceedings. The applicant alleged therefore that their decisions could not be considered as being reasoned within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In this regard it also maintained that the Supreme Court had failed to re-examine the credibility of one the witnesses and the authenticity of certain of the evidence submitted despite striking inconsistencies in the first instance decision.
THE LAW
By letter dated 30 January 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case. Subsequently, by letter dated 3 March 2006, the Government informed the Court that the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus had approved the terms of the friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant company 5,600 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of its claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. By letter dated 23 May 2006 the applicant confirmed the settlement and informed the Court that it did not wish to pursue its application.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and the applicant’s wish not to pursue its application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should de discontinued and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy