FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13010/03
by Andriana PAVLOU
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 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 Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 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 partial decision of 12 January 2006,
Having regard to the parties’ correspondence,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Andriana Pavlou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1934 and lives in Limassol. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Demetriades, 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 was the owner of a plot of land (no. 149) in Ayios Tychonas in the Amathunda district of Limassol. This plot had been classified under the Antiquities Law as being of archaeological importance and came within the ambit of a town planning zone subject to building restrictions. The Government decided to expropriate the property for archaeological reasons. The notice of expropriation was published on 21 March 1986 and the order of expropriation on 4 July 1986.
The applicant was paid the amount of 16,060 Cypriot pounds (CYP) plus interest as compensation for the expropriation. However, she reserved her right to apply to the district court for the determination of the compensation.
In November 1990 the applicant lodged a civil action with the District Court of Limassol (action no. 56/90).
In its judgment of 25 February 1997 the district court found that the value of the property amounted to CYP 25,000.
The applicant then lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court. In its judgment 27 September 1999 the Supreme Court decided that the judgment of the district court was not duly reasoned and ordered a retrial.
The case went back to the District Court of Limassol for a retrial. In its judgment of 5 April 2001 the district court rejected the applicant’s arguments and upheld the compensation that had been granted by the Government.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.
On 14 October 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the district court and the compensation awarded thereby.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Cypriot Courts.
THE LAW
By letter dated 22 May 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case and that the Government would be willing to pay the applicant 11,500 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of her claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. By letter dated 2 June 2006 the applicant confirmed the settlement. Subsequently, by letter dated 3 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.
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] [by a majority]
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy