FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53103/15
Shkelqim HATIJA
against Albania
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Aleš Pejchal,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 October 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 September 2016 and their submissions of 11 October 2016 requesting implicitly the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Shkelqim Hatija, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Fier.
The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office.
The applicant complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings, notably those before the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 19 September 2016 the Court received a friendly settlement declaration signed by the Government, under which the Government of Albania offered to pay the applicant EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.
That declaration was submitted in response to the Registry’s proposal for a friendly-settlement agreement, addressed to both parties.
The applicant did not accept the friendly settlement proposal.
On 11 October 2016 the Government informed the Court that in case of the applicant’s refusal to accept the friendly settlement proposal, their signed declaration of 19 September 2016 should be treated as a unilateral declaration submitted with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application.
By a letter of 24 October 2016, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the declaration because the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage that he had sustained was higher than the amount offered by the Government.
The Court notes that, despite the fact that the Government did not submit a new, separate form of unilateral declaration, they explicitly maintained their position that their signed friendly settlement declaration submitted in response to the Registry’s proposal, be treated as a unilateral declaration. Accordingly, the Court will consider that the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application.
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 application”.
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. 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 Albania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of proceedings (see Luli and Others v. Albania, nos. 64480/09, 64482/09, 12874/10, 56935/10, 3129/12 and 31355/09, §§ 63-64, 1 April 2014).
The Court notes that the sum of money offered by the Government purports to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of the length of judicial proceedings.
Having regard to the nature of the submissions made by the Government, 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 application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
The Court considers that this amount should be converted into national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
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 case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017.
Renata DegenerLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy