CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s3E2425C9 { width:39.22pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s403582AA { width:8.67pt; display:inline-block } .sA68FC927 { width:137.18pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 34830/18 Stefan PULS against Germany   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   December 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Darian Pavli,   Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 July 2018, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 August 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Stefan Puls, is a German national, who was born in   1967 and lives in Flensburg. He was represented before the Court by Mr   S.   Pfister, a lawyer practising in Flensburg. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by one of their Agents, Mr H.‑J. Behrens, of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings. The applicant was the defendant in civil proceedings concerning a compensation claim of roughly EUR   21,500, which lasted from 3 March 2006 until 28 March 2013 for one instance. The applicant subsequently requested compensation for 17   months of undue delay under the Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations. The Schleswig-Holstein Court of Appeal acknowledged that there had been an undue delay of 13 months but rejected the applicant’s claim for financial compensation. The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW The applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings. He relied on Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16   August   2019 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: “The Federal Government therefore wishes to acknowledge – by way of a unilateral declaration – that the duration of the Applicant’s civil proceedings before Flensburg Regional Court violated the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 (1) of the Convention. If the Court were to strike this Application out of its list of cases, the Federal Government is prepared to accept the Applicant’s compensation claim in the amount of EUR 4,300. This sum of EUR 4,300 would be deemed to settle all claims of the Applicant in connection with the above-mentioned Application against the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular for compensation for damage suffered by him (including non-pecuniary damage), as well as costs and expenses. “ The Court has not received a response from the applicant which accepts 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI; WAZA Sp. 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 Germany, its practice concerning the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State as regards the determination of “civil rights and obligations” within a “reasonable time” (see, among many others, Sürmeli v.   Germany [GC], no.   75529/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ VII; more recently, Fröhlich v.   Germany , no.   16741/16, 24 January 2019). The Court has also dealt with applications concerning the Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations (see for example, Kuppinger v.   Germany , no.   62198/11, §§   139 et seq., 15 January 2015; Peter v.   Germany (dec.), no.   68919/10, §§   54 et seq., 4 September 2014). 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 ). The Court considers that this amount should be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article   37 §   1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. 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 declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 28 January 2021.       Olga Chernishova   Georges Ravarani   Deputy Registrar   President