FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1615/04
by PANCYPRIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 May 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 5 December 2003,
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, Pancyprian Insurance Co. Ltd, is a limited liability company registered in Cyprus. 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.
On 17 October 1985 civil action no. 5949/85 (St George Car Hire Ltd and others v. Macedonia Gavrielidou and Others) was filed in the District Court of Limassol by fourteen plaintiffs, including the applicant company (plaintiff no.14).
The action concerned the enforcement of certain contracts for the sale of apartments that had been concluded with one of the defendants, a company by the name of A. Pieris (Alakatoudi) Beach Court Ltd (defendant no. 4), in a block that was built on land owned by the rest of the defendants (nos. 1-3). In the proceedings the plaintiffs requested, inter alia, an order by the court declaring that, the contracts of sale of the relevant apartments concluded between them and the above-mentioned company were binding on the latter as well as the other defendants who were not parties to the contracts; and that the defendants as co-owners and/or sellers of the relevant apartments held the apartments as trustees for the benefit of the plaintiffs.
On 30 May 2003 the District Court of Limassol upheld the plaintiffs’ claims against defendant no. 4 but dismissed the action in favour of the remainder of the defendants.
An appeal was filed against the decision which is still pending before the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Cypriot courts and about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
THE LAW
By letter dated 27 December 2005 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case. Subsequently, by letter dated 7 February 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 applicant 7,600 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of its claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. By letter dated 16 March 2006 the applicant confirmed the settlement and waived any further claims against Cyprus in respect of the facts of the present application.
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