CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 août 2015

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s97AF86F8 { width:9.31pt; display:inline-block } .sEE705DC1 { width:108.12pt; display:inline-block } .sBE975F9 { width:33.32pt; display:inline-block } .sB90FF49 { width:134.79pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 22256/14 Paulo Alexandre DE JESUS AFONSO and Sonia Cristina TEIXEIRA RODRIGUES DA CRUZ against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25   August 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 March 2014, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 March 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants, Mr Paulo Alexandre de Jesus Afonso and Ms Sónia Cristina Teixeira Rodrigues da Cruz, are Portuguese nationals, who were born in 1967 and 1974 respectively and live in Tavira. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. J. Ferreira Alves, a lawyer practising in Matosinhos. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney-General. The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings to which they were a party and the lack of an effective remedy with regard to it. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 31 March 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “Je soussignée, M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Procureur général adjoint, déclare que le gouvernement portugais offre de verser, conjointement, à M. Paulo Alexandre de Jesus Afonso et à M me Sónia Cristina Teixeira Rodrigues da Cruz, la somme de 5.200,00 euros (cinq mille deux cents euros) couvrant tout préjudice moral et la somme de 1.000,00 (mille euros) couvrant les frais et dépens, au titre dans la requête enregistrée sous le nº 22256/14. Ces sommes seront exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable et seront payées dans les trois mois suivant   la date de 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.” By a letter of 28 April 2015, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. The Court reiterates 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. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003-VI ; WAZA 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 ‑ ....; 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 application (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 ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 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 the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 17 September 2015.   André Wampach   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska   Deputy Registrar   President