FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33710/06
by Melpo HADJIPANAYIOTOU
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
Takis Eliades, ad hoc judge,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2006,
Having regard to the parties’ declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Melpo Hadjipanayiotou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1948 and lives in Nicosia. She was represented before the Court by Mr C. Clerides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant worked at the Central Bank of Cyprus (“the Bank”) as a clerk from 1973 until 1999. During the period of her employment she was regularly absent on sick leave for extended periods. Furthermore, from 1994 onwards she complained to the management about her working conditions and alleged discriminatory treatment.
After a long period of absence from work (from 16 January 1999 until 31 July 1999) due to health problems, the Bank commenced a procedure for her early retirement.
The matter was examined by the Board of Directors on 17 February 2000 which decided to ask her to retire on health grounds.
On 24 May 2000 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review before the Supreme Court challenging the Bank’s decision to request her to retire.
On 30 January 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the application.
On 13 March 2003 the applicant appealed before the Supreme Court against the first-instance judgment. In her appeal grounds she challenged the findings of the first-instance court and relied on Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1.
On 1 February 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted unreasonably long.
With reference to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant also submitted a number of other complaints.
THE LAW
On 26 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Petros Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus, declare that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus offer to pay EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to Ms Melpo Hadjipanayiotou 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 this 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.”
On 21 October 2008 the Court received a letter by the applicant confirming that she accepted the offer made by the Government in their declaration.
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 strike the case out of the list.
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