CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 juin 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26ACE78A { height:13.4pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)54 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Serghides and Christoforou against Cyprus   (Application No. 44730/98, judgment of 5 November 2002, final on 5 February 2003, and of 10 June 2003, final on 24 September 2003 (just satisfaction))     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case only concern Ms Serghides’s complaints, namely: the privation of the applicant of her land without compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), the excessive length of proceedings before the Supreme Court (violation of Article 6, paragraph   1) and the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court in order to determine the lawfulness of the action complained of (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)54   Information on the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of Serghides and Christoforou against Cyprus     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the expropriation, in 1979, of part of the first applicant’s land without compensation following a street-widening scheme of the Municipality of Nicosia (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The case also concerns two violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, related to the excessive length of proceedings before the Supreme Court, from November 1989 to February 1998, before two levels of jurisdiction; and the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in order to determine the lawfulness of the action complained of. At first instance the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as being out of time even though she had never received notification of the expropriation of her land. Furthermore, the same court dismissed her appeal having found that she had no locus standi on the grounds that the applicant had donated the disputed property to her children.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 60000 EUR 12000 EUR 20000 EUR 92000 EUR Paid on 18/12/2003   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained in the case and a sum awarded for the expenses incurred during the process. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   As regards violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, first of all, a series of circulars of the Supreme Court covering the years 1995-2003 facilitated the acceleration of proceedings in all national courts; the average length of proceedings before the Supreme Court in administrative cases is now approximately one year. These circulars are binding on the judicial authorities and non-compliance with them may entail disciplinary sanctions. This issue is examined in the context of the Gregoriou group (Application No. 62242/00, and 24 other cases). Secondly, in relation to the right to effective access to a court, the direct effect of the European Convention in Cypriot law ensures conformity with the Convention (see Supreme Court judgment in the case of Archangelos Domain against Van Nievelt, Contain (1998) 1 CLR 51).   As regards the violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1, as a result of the 2001 Supreme Court case of Catheleen Georgallides and others against A-G (Civil Appeal 10695, 27 March 2001), it has been established in Cypriot law that every individual has the right to reasonable compensation in cases of expropriation, irrespective of the method of expropriation.   The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published at the site of the Cyprus bar Association ( www.cyprusbarassociation.org )   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Cyprus has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies