FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9071/05
by JOANNOU & PARASKEVAIDES LTD
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Regitrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 March 2005,
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, Joannou & Paraskevaides Ltd, is a company registered under Cypriot law. It was represented before the Court by Dr 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 of Cyprus.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant company had undertaken the completion of the construction of certain premises and for this purpose had entered into an agreement with another company to hire the services of certain of its employees. On 30 August 1994 one of these employees was injured while working on the relevant premises.
On 20 March 1995 he lodged a civil action for personal injury (no. 2543/95) against both companies before the District Court of Nicosia. Following a declaration by the claimant on 10 June 2002 accepting 20 per cent contributory negligence and the amount of 22,500 Cypriot pounds (CYP) for damages and legal expenses, which was accepted by the defendants, the proceedings continued as to the adjudication of the latter’s respective responsibility.
The District Court delivered its judgment on 17 October 2002 by which it found the applicant company liable for 80 per cent contributory negligence.
On 27 November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal (no. 11521) with the Supreme Court. In its judgment of 2 February 2005 the Supreme Court found the applicant company guilty of 50 per cent contributory negligence and the co-defendant company of 30 per cent.
In the course of the proceedings the applicant sent letters to the Legal Office of the Republic complaining about the protracted length of the proceedings and its effect on the collection and processing of the evidence. He further claimed compensation but no agreement was reached in this respect.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings exceeded the requirements of “reasonable time”. In this connection, it further complained that due to the protracted length of the proceedings it was deprived of a fair trial since the quality and quantity of available evidence in its favour was significantly reduced or otherwise rendered unavailable.
2. The applicant further complained of a lack of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 in respect of its rights under Article 6 § 1.
THE LAW
By letter dated 5 July 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case and that the Government would pay the applicant 10,700 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of its claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. Subsequently, by letter dated 24 July 2006, the Government informed the Court that the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus had approved the terms of the friendly settlement. By letter dated 27 July 2006 the applicant confirmed the settlement.
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).
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