CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 28209/95                       by Christos CONSTANTINOU                       against Cyprus         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 7 June 1995 by Christos CONSTANTINOU against Cyprus and registered on 10 August 1995 under file No. 28209/95;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       21 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 26 July 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Cypriot citizen, born in 1983 and resident in Nicosia. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Achilleas Demetriades and Ms. Vicky Loizides, advocates practising in Nicosia.         The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.         The applicant was born prematurely in Nicosia. It was discovered that he suffered from Retrolental Fibroplasia, the cause of which was established to be extreme prematurity combined with excessive oxygen administration in the neonatal period.         On 9 December 1986 the applicant, represented by his father, filed with the Nicosia District Court an action for damages against the State (N° 10252/86), on the ground that his state of health was due to medical negligence of Government doctors at his birth.         The case was fixed for mention on 14 March 1989 and was adjourned eight times at the request of the parties who were considering an out- of-court settlement.         On 16 January 1990 a notice of change of the plaintiff's advocate, who was appointed by the Government as a member of the Legal Service of the Republic, was filed in Court.         On 18 January 1990 the case was struck from the list in order to allow the applicant's new counsel to apply for an amendment of the statement of claim.         On 9 July 1990 the applicant's counsel filed an application by summons, requesting leave of the Court to amend the specially indorsed writ of summons and to file a new specially endorsed writ of summons. This request was granted on 17 September 1990.         On 2 October 1990 an amended specially endorsed writ of summons was filed with the Nicosia District Court.         On 2 November 1990 the applicant's counsel filed an application by summons, requesting judgment in default of the defence. The next day the defendant Attorney-General filed a statement of defence, following which the plaintiff withdrew his application of 2 November 1990.         On 24 January 1991 the applicant's counsel filed an application by summons, requesting further and better particulars. This was fixed for hearing on 7 February 1991.         On 30 January 1991 the defendant's counsel filed a letter replying to the application that none of the further and better particulars requested existed in the form of a document.         On 7 February 1991 the case was adjourned by consent to allow the defendant's counsel to file an opposition to the application and/or to consider whether some further and better particulars could be provided before the trial.         On 6 March, 22 April and 13 May 1991 the case was adjourned by consent.         On 21 June 1991 the defendant's counsel stated that he would submit by 1 September 1991 any particulars that may exist.         On 23 October 1991 the applicant's counsel filed an application by summons, requesting that the defendant's counsel be ordered to submit further and better particulars.         On 7 November 1991 the defendant's counsel requested time due to difficulties to obtain the particulars. The applicant's counsel did not object.         On 27 November 1991 the defendant's counsel requested time to file an opposition to the application. The case was fixed for 17 January 1992 and then adjourned by consent to 4 February 1992, when the defendant's counsel stated that two documents had been given to the applicant's counsel.         On 19 March 1992 the applicant's counsel requested that the action be fixed for hearing. On 8 May 1992 the hearing was fixed for 11 and 14 December 1992.         On 11 December 1992 the hearing was adjourned at the request of the parties who were considering an out-of-court settlement.         On 14 and 15 December 1992 the case was heard and then adjourned for further continued hearing on 27 January 1993.         On 27 January 1993 the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment. The hearing continued on 15 February 1993.         On 24 February 1993 the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment as his witness could not attend. The hearing continued on 3, 29 and 30 March and 9 April 1993. On 22 April 1993 the applicant requested an adjournment as his counsel had undergone an eye-surgery. The hearing continued on 14 June and 6 July 1993.         On 16 September 1993 the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment as he had not been able to contact his witness. The hearing continued on 14 October 1993.         On 4 November 1993 the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment due to serious personal reasons. The hearing continued on 23 November 1993.         On 1 December 1993 the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment because he was not ready to plead the case.         On 16 December 1993 the hearing was concluded.         On 21 March 1994 a 62-paged judgment was delivered, dismissing action N° 10252/86 on the ground that no breach of professional medical negligence on behalf of the defendant's servants had been proved.         On 3 May 1994 the applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Cyprus. The hearing was fixed for 30 May 1996.         On 10 May 1996, the applicant informed the Registrar of the Court that a new advocate had been appointed as his counsel. However, the new counsel was later appointed as a District Court judge and the applicant had to change advocate.         On 28 May 1996 the Registrar was informed of the new appointment. The new counsel also informed the Registrar that on 30 May 1996 he would be obliged to ask for an adjournment as the record of the case was still not ready.         On 30 May 1996 the applicant's counsel received an incomplete copy of the record of the action. The hearing was adjourned to 18 June 1996.         On 5 June 1996 the applicant's counsel informed the Registrar that the record was incomplete and requested a complete set which was given to him few days later.         On 12 June 1996 the applicant's counsel filed an application to file additional grounds of appeal in relation to Articles of the Convention. The application and the appeal were fixed on 18 June 1996. On that day the Government informed the Court that they would file an opposition to the application. The Court therefore directed the Government to file an opposition within one month and adjourned the case for hearing on 12 September 1996.     COMPLAINT         The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings and invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 7 June 1995 and registered on 10 August 1995.         On 17 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of proceedings to the respondent Government and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 21 March 1996. The applicant replied on 26 July 1996, after an extension of the time-limit.         By letter dated 24 February 1997, the applicant's lawyer informed the Secretariat that after having reached an out-of-court settlement with the Cypriot Government, the applicant has decided to withdraw his application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         By letter dated 24 February 1997, the applicant's lawyer informed the Secretariat that the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement which provides that the Cypriot Government will pay the applicant 55.000 CYP£ and costs. Therefore, the applicant has decided to withdraw his application.         In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant no longer intends to pursue his application. It further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.         It follows that the application may be struck out the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE       LIST OF CASES.      M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                 J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President   to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber