FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2013/07
by Vrahimis HADJIHANNAS
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 January 2007,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vrahimis Hadjihannas, is a Cypriot national and a member of the Maronite minority who was born in 1946 and lives in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant has been persistently applying for appointment and promotion to different posts within the Cypriot civil service since 1988. He has succeeded on sixty-one different occasions in obtaining an annulment by the Supreme Court of decisions taken by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Despite the Supreme Court's decisions in his favour, the CSC has not proceeded to appoint the applicant to any of the posts forming the subject matter of the relevant administrative proceedings.
On an unspecified date the applicant sought to be appointed First Administrative Officer with the Civil Service. His application was unsuccessful and his subsequent judicial review application challenging the appointment made by the CSC was upheld by the Supreme Court on 6 October 1999. A subsequent decision by the CSC was also challenged before the Supreme Court, which had it annulled on 19 March 2001: the CSC had failed to select the most suitable candidates for appointment given that the catalogue of recommended candidates it considered had been prepared in error.
On 22 May 2001 the CSC proceeded to make new appointments. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged new judicial review proceedings against the CSC's decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's action on 18 April 2003. All of the applicant's arguments concerning his alleged seniority and acquisition of better qualifications were rejected together with the suggestion that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his membership of the Maronite minority. On 19 June 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the first-instance judgment, exercising its revisional appellate jurisdiction.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied his right to a fair trial by the proceedings before the administrative and judicial authorities. He also complained under the same provision about the length of the proceedings given that the final judgment rejecting his appeal was delivered in June 2006.
2. The applicant complained under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention that the breach of his right to a fair trial was due to the fact that he is a member of the Maronite minority.
3. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the administration of Cyprus has deprived him of an appointment or promotion and is therefore responsible for his loss of income.
4. Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he complained of lack of an effective remedy concerning the length of the proceedings and the execution of the administrative courts' judgments.
THE LAW
On 26 May 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit written observations on the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in this respect.
On 9 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Vrachimis Hadjihannas, note that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus are prepared to pay me EUR 4,500 (four thousand and five hundred euros), covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the Republic of Cyprus in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 17 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Petros Clerides, Agent for the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, declare that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus offer to pay the applicant EUR 4,500 (four thousand and five hundred euros), covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and strike the case out of the Court's list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy