FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40766/05
by OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND PROVISIONAL LIQUIDOR OF LOUCOS
TRADING CO LTD and Papachristophorou Loukis
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 July 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 Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 October 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 first applicant is the Official Receiver and Provisional Liquidator of Loucos Trading Co Ltd, a company registered under Cypriot law. The second applicant, Mr Loukis Papachristophorou, is a director of the applicant company which has been subject to liquidation. He is a Cypriot national living in Nicosia. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr S. Drakos, 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.
On 2 November 1993 civil action no. 10565/93 was lodged with the District Court of Nicosia against the applicant company and the second applicant. The plaintiff claimed the payment of certain amounts owed by virtue of a stated account, two bills of exchange and three cheques issued in its favour by the first applicant with the second applicant acting as a guarantor. Subsequently on 8 December 1993 the plaintiff lodged an application for a summary judgment in its favour on the basis of the lack of defence on the part of the applicants. The latter filed an objection to this on 15 December 1993.
On 9 August 1994 the district court delivered its decision on the application for a summary judgment. It held that the applicants were allowed to submit their defence by 15 October 1994 in relation to the contested stated account and bills of exchange. The application was successful as regards the three cheques.
On 15 December 1998 the district court issued its decision on the merits. The court found in favour of the plaintiff and considered that the evidence submitted on behalf of the applicants, including the testimony of the second applicant, had not been convincing.
The applicants lodged an appeal (no. 10543) with the Supreme Court.
On 27 April 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It observed that the district court had correctly applied the relevant legislation to the circumstances of the case as established by the available evidence before it.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained in a general manner under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the following:
(a) the domestic courts had failed to properly examine and take seriously the submissions and evidence that had been submitted by the applicants;
(b) the decision of the Supreme Court had not been duly reasoned;
(c) the judgments of the domestic courts had erred in law; and finally,
(d) the length of the proceedings had exceeded the requirements of “reasonable time”.
THE LAW
By letter dated 11 April 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case. Subsequently, by letter dated 27 April 2006, the Government informed the Court that the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus had approved the terms of the friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicants jointly 10,500 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of their claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. By letter dated 6 June 2006 the applicants confirmed the settlement and informed the Court that they wished to withdraw their application.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and the applicants’ wish to withdraw their application. 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