CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 décembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 37943/97 by Antonis KOUNOUNIS against Cyprus The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   December 2000 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze , judges , and   Mrs   S. Dolle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 July 1997 and registered on 29   September 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Cypriot national, born in 1949 and living in Limassol. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. L. Cacoyiannis, a lawyer practising in Limassol. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 26 May 1987 the administrators of the estate of Mr S. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant before the District Court of Limassol claiming damages for Mr S.’s death which occurred in the applicant’s clinic. On 4 October 1993 the Limassol District Court rejected the action. On November 1993 the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On 23   May 1995 the Registrar informed the parties that the appeal would be heard on 30 June 1995. On 28 June 1995 the parties were informed that the appeal would be heard on 21 September 1995. On 21 September 1995 the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing until 16 October 1995. On that date the Supreme Court ordered a further adjournment until 24 April 1996, and then until 25 June 1996. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court between 25 June 1996 and 24   September 1996. The applicant protested about the delays, invoking Article   30.2 of the Constitution of Cyprus, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. On 29 May 1997 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the district Court of Limassol. The applicant, invoking Article 30.2 of the Constitution of Cyprus and Article 6 of the Convention, complained about the length of the proceedings. On 21 July 1997 the parties informed the Limassol District Court that they had reached a friendly settlement, by which the applicant had agreed to pay CYP 30,000. On the same date the District Court issued a judgment by consent ordering the applicant to pay the plaintiffs the agreed amount. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 26 May 1987 and ended on 21 July 1997 with the judgment of the Limassol District Court. The period to be taken into consideration started on 1   January 1989 when the Cypriot declaration accepting the right of individual petition took effect. The proceedings therefore lasted eight years, six months and twenty days, through three levels of jurisdiction. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, for which he had no effective remedy, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegations. 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 these complaints is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President