FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49538/12
GLOTAR ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHERS
against Liechtenstein
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
Mark Villiger,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 August 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS, COMPLAINTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Glotar Establishment, KRH Capital Establishment, Kurita Establishment and Peltora Establishment, are companies registered in Liechtenstein. They were jointly represented before the Court by Mr N. Reithner, a lawyer practising in Schaan, and by Mr B. O’Sullivan, a lawyer practising in London.
The Liechtenstein Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Ospelt, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the Council of Europe.
As to the facts of the case, the Regional Court ordered the applicant companies and the R. company, on 23 July 2008, to pay jointly and severally 185,331,381.29 euros (EUR) to the Principality of Liechtenstein. The court found that the applicant companies had been unlawfully enriched in that amount by proceeds of an embezzlement committed by the late President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, General Sani Abacha, to the detriment of that State. It based its findings, in particular, on the statements made by witnesses M., L. and B., who had been involved as senior executives for the Ferrostaal company in the transactions at issue. The Regional Court’s judgment was confirmed on appeal.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had relied to a decisive extent on the statements of witnesses M., L. and B., whom the applicants had had no opportunity to cross-examine. They further argued that the payment order made against them was a disproportionate penalty based on legal provisions which were adopted after the commission of the alleged offence and thus breached Article 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention.
On 6 May 2014 the Vice-President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to communicate part of the application to the Government of Liechtenstein and to invite them to submit observations on the above complaints. As regards the remainder of the application, the Vice-President of the Section, sitting in a single-judge formation, declared it inadmissible.
By fax dated 13 May 2014 the applicants informed the Court, without giving reasons, that they wished to withdraw the application.
By letter dated 16 May 2014, received at the Court on 28 May 2014, the Government informed the Court that they did not wish to comment on the applicant’s declaration.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the applicants’ wish to withdraw, and thus no longer to pursue, their application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). It considers that there is nothing to indicate that there are public policy reasons which justify dealing with the case notwithstanding the applicants’ declaration. Therefore, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require the Court to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy