CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s208721C6 { width:191.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 64008/09 by IOANNIS PITTAS A.E. against Greece The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13   September 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev, judges and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 November 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Ioannis Pittas A.E., is a private company dealing with the construction and exploitation of car parking buildings and is based in Piraeus. It was represented before the Court by Ms E. Stamouli, a lawyer practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Georgakopoulos, President of the Legal Council of the State. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 13 September 2001 the applicant filed a request with the authorities asking for an investment subsidy to be granted regarding the development of a car parking building in Piraeus district. On 11 October 2001 the authorities decided to archive the file because of the extended scope of the company’s memorandum (decision no. 2874/01). It was observed that, according to the relevant law (no. 2601/98) only companies that had as exclusive scope the exploitation of car parking buildings could be granted the investment subsidy. After an amendment of the company’s memorandum took place, a second application was filed with the authorities on 12 April 2002 asking for the abovementioned investment subsidy to be granted. On 10 May 2002 the authorities, by decision no. 1055/02, rejected the applicant’s claim as, according to law no. 2601/98 no amendment or completion regarding the relevant fields of the file was allowed after the date of submission. On 9 July 2002 the applicant lodged a recourse with the Supreme Administrative Court against the Ministry of Finance asking for the annulment of decision no. 1055/02. As it transpires from the case file, the proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. 2. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that its right to property was violated since the investment subsidy was not granted to it, even though it was allegedly entitled to and a loan of 1,000,000 euros had to be obtained in order to finance the cost of the project. THE LAW On 29 April 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Fokion P. Georgakopoulos, Agent of the Government of Greece, declare that the Government of Greece offer to pay, ex gratia to the company Ioannis Pittas A.E., with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 6   000 euros, to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and any and all costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”   On 2 May 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “I, Evangelia Stamouli, note that the Government of Greece are prepared to pay ex gratia to the company Ioannis Pittas A.E., with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 6   000 euros, to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and any and all costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Having consulted my client, I would inform you that it accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Greece in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. It declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” 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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. André Wampach   Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar   President