FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40600/11
Keith KENNAUGH
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Kristina Pardalos, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 July 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Keith Kennaugh, is a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Sheffield.
2. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. McLeod of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings arising out of an employment dispute.
4. The application was communicated to the Government on 12 September 2013.
THE LAW
5. By a letter of 28 July 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
6. The declaration provided as follows:
“1. The United Kingdom Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 paragraph 1, as regards the length of the domestic proceedings.
2. In light of the declarations above, and having regard to the particular facts of the Applicant’s case, the Government offers to pay to the Applicant the amount of 7,500 EUR, an amount which it considers reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. This sum is to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the Applicant’s case.
3. This sum will be payable in Pounds Sterling at the rate applicable at the date of payment to the personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
4. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said 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.
5. Thus, the Government respectfully invites the Court to rule that the examination of the present application is no long justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
7. The applicant was invited to submit any comments on the unilateral declaration by 17 September 2015. No reply was received by this date.
8. 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”.
9. 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.
10. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the United Kingdom, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
12. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, 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)).
13. 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).
14. 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).
15. 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 18 February 2016.
André WampachKristina Pardalos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy