THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41854/98
by Modestos PITSILLOS
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 24 August 1999 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ-P. Costa,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja, Judges,
withMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 2 June 1998 by Modestos Pitsillos against Cyprus and registered on 23 June 1998 under file no. 41854/98;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having examined the case file, including the parties' observations;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Cypriot national, born in 1920 and living in Nicosia.
He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Vrahimis, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The proceedings in question in the present case concern the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to the applicant.
The following is a summary of the proceedings:
On 27 November 1989 the applicant asked the Nicosia District Court to determine his compensation for the expropriation of his plot. On 22 July 1994 the court awarded the applicant 500 Cypriot pounds plus costs and expenses.
On 30 August 1994 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.
On 6 March 1997 the applicant requested that his appeal should be fixed for hearing.
On 9 July 1998 the record of the first instance proceedings was completed.
On 22 September 1998 the Supreme Court gave pre-trial directions for the appeal. The applicant and the authorities filed their outlines of appeal on 6 November 1998 and 21 December 1998 respectively. The hearing of the appeal was set for 19 May 1999.
On 28 April 1999 the hearing of the appeal was stayed until 19 July 1999 to enable the Supreme Court to hear two criminal appeals as a matter of urgency.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 June 1998 and registered on 23 June 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
On 19 January 1999, the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The Government submitted their observations on 30 April 1999, after an extension of the time-limit, to which the applicant replied on 18 June 1999.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 27 November 1989 and are still pending.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings – a period approaching ten years – is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government accept that the period of nearly four years which elapsed before the completion of the record of the first instance proceedings cannot be justified. This record was necessary for the hearing of the appeal. However, the Government point out that the applicant could have expedited the proceedings by submitting earlier his request for his appeal to be set for hearing.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, unanimously, the Court
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
S. DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy