CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 avril 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDAF6EE49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s263141D2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2FB67FAF { width:154.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 4237/13 Jose Luís CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 st   April   2014   as a Committee composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2012, Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 5 December 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS The applicant, Mr José Luís Cunha Martins da Silva Couto, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Porto. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney-General. The application was communicated to the Government. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings before the Commercial Court of Lisbon (domestic proceedings no. 1143/05.0TYSLB). After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly-settlement, by letter dated 5   December 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application . "Je soussignée, M me F. da Graça Carvalho, Procureur général adjointe, déclare que le gouvernement portugais offre de verser à M. José Luís Cunha Martins da Silva Couto, la somme de 6.500,00 (six mille cinq cents) euros couvrant tout préjudice moral, et la somme de 500,00 (cinq cents) euros couvrant l’ensemble des frais et dépens, au titre de la requête enregistrée sous le n o 4237/13, portant sur le délai raisonnable. Ces sommes seront exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable et seront payées dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de radiation rendue par la Cour sur le fondement l’article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention. Le paiement vaudra règlement définitif de la cause. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif des sommes en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Le Gouvernement reconnaît qu’en l’espèce il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention." On 7 January 2014, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, Article   37   §   1 (c) enables the Court to strike a cause of its list if: "for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications". To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2004 ‑ III; WAZA S Spółka z   o.o.   v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007: and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Portugal, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §§   69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Majewski v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v.   Poland , no.   56026/00, 10 May 2007; regarding Portugal, see Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal , no.   33729/06, 10   June 2008). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with its undertakings; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. André Wampach   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Deputy Registrar   President