CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 septembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .sAC987317 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB2586C02 { width:24.28pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .s67F902E9 { width:18.72pt; display:inline-block } .s631721C4 { width:23.18pt; display:inline-block } .sBA0D2B76 { width:20.4pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s38CD0107 { width:20.96pt; display:inline-block } .sAF5EB3A6 { width:23.74pt; display:inline-block } .s8B126725 { width:21.5pt; display:inline-block } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } 1177th meeting – 11 September 2013   Appendix 6 (Item H46-1)   Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)154 Twenty-five cases against Cyprus Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   Application Case Judgment of Final on 62242/00 GREGORIOU 25/03/2003 09/07/2003 34579/05 A.J. HADJIHANNA BROS (TOURIST ENTERPRISES) LTD AND HADJIHANNAS 18/01/2007 18/04/2007 37885/04 CHARALAMBIDES 15/01/2009 15/04/2009 43151/04 CHARALAMBOUS ARESTI 19/07/2007 19/10/2007 30282/06 CHRISTODOULOU 16/07/2009 16/10/2009 6470/02 CICHOWICZ 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 35128/02 CLERIDES AND KYNIGOS 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 21929/04 DOUGLAS 17/07/2008 01/12/2008 15940/02 GAVRIELIDES 01/06/2006 01/09/2006 73802/01 GAVRIELIDOU AND OTHERS 06/04/2006 06/07/2006 2647/02 JOSEPHIDES 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 33761/02 JOSEPHIDES 06/12/2007 02/06/2008 2669/02 KYRIAKIDIS AND KYRIAKIDOU 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 68448/01 LERIOS 23/03/2006 23/06/2006 14790/06 MYLONAS 11/12/2008 06/07/2009 30503/03 ODYSSEOS 08/03/2007 08/06/2007 2418/05 OUZOUNIAN BARRET 18/01/2007 09/07/2007 20429/02 PAPAKOKKINOU 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 4403/03 PAPAKOKKINOU 14/12/2006 14/03/2006 20435/02 PAROUTIS 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 19106/03 PASTELLIS 02/03/2006 02/06/2006 47119/99 SHACOLAS 04/05/2006 04/08/2006 35698/03 TENGERAKIS 09/11/2006 09/02/2007 21322/02 TSAGGARIS 19/01/2006 19/04/2006 38775/02 WALDNER 19/01/2006 19/04/2006   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013 at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)675 rev);   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.     * * *     Action report (28 May 2013) Gregoriou v. Cyprus (Application No. 62242/2000, judgment of 25/03/2003, final on 09/07/03) 25 cases of length of judicial proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy   Introduction   1.   These cases all concern excessive length of civil proceedings running from prior to 1 January 1989 (the date on which the recognition by Cyprus of the right of individual petition took effect) up to the present (violations of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention).   2.   The cases of Clerides and Kynigos (Application No. 35128/02), Gavrielides (Application No.   15940/02), Gavrielidou and others (Application No. 73802/01), Paroutis (Application No. 20435/02), Lerios (Application No. 68448/01) and Ouzounian Barret (Application No. 2418/05) also concern the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the excessive length of judicial proceedings (violations of Article 13).   3.   The latest judgment of this group was delivered on 16 July 2009 and became final on 16 October 2009 (i.e. Christodoulou v. Cyprus). Following this judgment, no other judgments have been issued by the European Court regarding excessive length of judicial proceedings in the determination of civil rights and obligations and/or lack of an effective domestic remedy for the excessive length of those proceedings. On 23   September 2010, the European Court rejected as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of effective remedies an application for an alleged violation of Article 6   §   1 regarding the length of judicial proceedings (see further   below).   4.   This document details measures which have been taken by the Cypriot authorities. The primary issues to be addressed are (i) the improvement of the efficiency of the judicial system in order to prevent future similar violations (Article 6 § 1), and; (ii) the establishment of an effective remedy (in practice and theory) which will satisfy those who have suffered from excessive length of judicial proceedings (Article 13).   Individual measures   5.   In all cases for which a violation of Article 6 § 1 and/or 13 was found, proceedings in domestic courts are closed except for that of Shacolas v. Cyprus (Application No. 47119/1999). In the Shacolas v. Cyprus case, the appeal proceedings have been concluded and the appeal court ordered a retrial. However, a complaint by any of the parties of this case respecting the length of proceedings may be made under the new law (Law 2(I)/2010) (see further under general measures below). The law applies to cases which were pending at any stage before it came into force, thus, applicants whose proceedings are concluded can still benefit from this remedy.   6.   In all cases, the applicants were paid the amount awarded by the judgments.   7.   The government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.   General measures   I.   Publication and dissemination   8.   Several of the judgments from this group were promptly disseminated, with an explanatory letter, by the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent, to judicial authorities, the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, the Cyprus Bar Association and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Parliamentary Committees. On 10 March 2010, the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent’s Office circulated to all law officers within the Government Agent’s Office and the Supreme Court a list of all judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Cyprus concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings.   9.   Summaries of several of the judgments from this group in which the Court found a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention due to the length of judicial proceedings, were published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (see, for example, Kyriakidis and Kyriakidou v. Cyprus, 2006, 2nd issue). Summaries of several of the judgments from this group, in which the Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, were published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (see, for example, Gavrielides v. Cyprus in 2006, 2nd issue).   10.   The judgment in the case of Paroutis v. Cyprus was translated into Greek and published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (2006, 2nd issue). Charalambides v. Cyprus, Charalambous Aresti v. Cyprus and Josephides v. Cyprus have also been translated into Greek.   11.   Several judgments of this group and their translations have also been inserted at the Government Agent’s (Human Rights Sector) website at www.law.gov.cy .   2.   Violations of Article 6 § 1   12.   Regulatory measures (in particular a series of circulars issued by the Supreme Court from 1995-2003) were adopted for the prevention of similar violations.   13.   A number of other measures have been taken while others remain to be implemented:   (a)   Measures taken:   (i) One judge of the Supreme Court has been assigned to follow up statistics concerning older cases and to inform the Supreme Court at regular intervals of the progress of judicial proceedings. Statistics followed up by a Supreme Court Judge and informing the Supreme Court of the progress of civil and criminal cases before district courts, show that the number of older cases has diminished and that there is a clear trend of dealing more efficiently with both old and new cases (for further details see under “statistics” below).   (ii) The jurisdiction of single judges in the district courts has been increased. This has reduced the amount of cases in which judges have to sit together to hear a case and has therefore saved court time. In particular, before the relevant change, civil cases were heard in district courts by courts composed of 2 or 3 judges which had unlimited jurisdiction to try all civil cases. Now, unlimited jurisdiction in civil cases has been granted to the judge acting as President of the district court. At the same time, the jurisdiction of other judges, namely, of senior district judges and district judges has been increased so that senior district judges can now hear civil actions in which the claim is up to €500,000 and district court judges can hear civil actions in which the claim is up to €100,000.   (iii) It is to be noted that arrangements have been made by the Supreme Court with effect on 1 January 2012, for monitoring reserved judgments/interim decisions. If judgments or interim decisions stand reserved for more than 6 or 2 months respectively, the President of the Supreme Court addresses the matter by letter to the judge in question, which is also filed in his/her personal file and taken into account respecting promotion. This is a step that precedes the procedure provided in the rules, under which cases can be fixed ex proprio motu for directions by the Supreme Court, if a judgment or interim decision stands reserved for more than 9 or 3 months respectively. The step has produced good results as the average number of judgments reserved for more than 6 and 9 months has dropped by 50%, and that of interim decisions reserved for more than 2 months has dropped by 60%.   (iv) Disciplinary measures are taken against judges who do not comply with Supreme Court directions provided under the Rules of Procedure for the timely issue of judgments. The competent disciplinary body is the Supreme Council of Judicature, composed of all the Supreme Court judges. No disciplinary measures have been taken so far, as judges always comply with the Supreme Court’s directions for the timely issue of judgments. In all cases in which judgments and interim decisions were not issued within the time-limits of 6 and 2 months respectively prescribed in the rules, and continued to stand reserved, for more than 9 months in the case of judgments, and 3 months in the cases of interim decisions, the Supreme Court’s resulting directions under the rules for their issue within a specified time were fully complied with and thus no disciplinary measures were taken.   (v) Interest on compensation now runs from the time of the cause of the action, encouraging litigants not to delay proceedings.   (vi) Judges attend regular seminars on human rights issues in rotation, subsequently feeding back information to other judges. The majority of judges are well informed of the European Court’s judgments and the problem of excessive length of proceedings.   (vii) The old stenograph system has been replaced with the digital recording system with respect to district courts when dealing with criminal law cases whose hearing is expected to last a long time and with respect to all assizes courts. The results are remarkable. Court minutes are automatically de-stenotyped and finalised within two days after the completion of the hearing and are stored digitally.   (viii) There has been an increase in the number of judges appointed to family and assize courts.   (ix) The Budget for 2010 (approved by the legislature on 1 January 2010) made provision for six additional judges at district courts. The posts of four District Court judges, a Senior District Court Judge, and a District Court President were filled in early January 2010.   (b)   Statistics to demonstrate the impact of the above measures taken:   On 31 December 2009, at Nicosia district court, there were 1 555 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On 31 December 2010, the number of those cases was reduced to 1 093 and on 31 October 2011 it was further reduced to 958.   On 31 December 2010, at Nicosia district court, there were 1   172 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On 31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 958.   On 31 December 2009, at Limassol district court, there were 842 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On 31 December 2010, their number was reduced to 493. And on 31 December 2011, it was further reduced to   274.   On 31 December 2010, at Limassol district court, there were 731 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On 31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 503.   On 31 December 2009, at Paphos district court, there were 410 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On 31 December 2010, their number was reduced to 246 and on 31 December 2011 it was further reduced to   111.   On 31 December 2010, at Paphos district court, there were 448 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On 31 December 2011 their number was reduced to 280.   On 31 December 2009, at Larnaka – Ammochostos district court, there were 292 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On 31 December 2010, their number was reduced to 126 and on 31 December 2011 it was further reduced to 59.   On 31 December 2010, at Larnaka – Ammochostos district court, there were 317 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On 31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 163.   In total, on 31 December 2009, there were 3 099 pending civil cases (in all district courts) lodged in 2007. Their number was reduced to 1 286 as of 31 December 2011. On 31 December 2010 there were 2 668 pending civil cases lodged in 2008 whose number was reduced to 1 904 as of 31 December 2011.   Whilst this group of cases concerns excessive delay in civil proceedings, it is also interesting to note in this context that some of the measures taken have also had a positive effect in reducing delays in criminal cases. Respecting district court criminal cases, there were, as of 31 December 2008, 239 pending cases lodged with the courts in 2006, and 4 170 lodged in 2007. Their number was reduced from 239 cases to 21 as of 2009, to 4 as of 31 December 2010, and to nil as of 31 December 2011. The number of criminal cases lodged with the courts in 2007 was reduced from 4 170 to 239 as of 31 December 2009, to 20 as of 31 December 2010, and to 1 case as of 31 December 2011. As of 31 December 2009, the number of criminal cases lodged with the courts in 2008 was 2 502, and this was reduced to 275, as of 31 December 2010 and to 26, as of 31 December 2011. As of 31 December 2010 the number of criminal cases lodged with the courts in 2009 was 3 213, and this was reduced to 755 as of 31 December 2011.   (c)   Measures to be implemented   The Cypriot authorities believe that the measures already taken (as set out above) have achieved the results needed to avoid similar violations in the future. Nevertheless, the Cypriot authorities will continue their work in this area and also plan to implement the following measures in the near future to further improve and increase the efficiency of the judicial system.   (i) The group of Supreme Court judges to which the Full Bench of the Supreme Court assigned the revision of the Civil Procedure Rules has completed its work and the draft text of the revised, simplified Rules has been submitted to the Full Bench for discussion and exchange of views. The Supreme Court is in the process of examining in detail one by one the draft revised rules submitted to it, for effecting any necessary adjustments to tackle problems which may arise in cases pending in the courts when the rules enter into force. The translation of the revised rules into English has been completed and the Supreme Court examines also in parallel with the above task, the English translation of each rule to ensure that it imports the meaning correctly.   (ii) Computerisation of the Judicial Service is envisaged and will be implemented in two phases: first in the Supreme Court followed by Nicosia District Court, with the subsequent extension to all domestic courts.   3.   Violation of Article 13   (a)   Legislative measures   14.   The Cypriot Parliament has adopted a Law (Law 2(I)/2010) providing a domestic remedy for instances of excessive length of civil and administrative proceedings, at all levels of jurisdiction, which came into force on 5 February 2010. Persons who consider that their right to determination of civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time has been violated may institute a complaint either when the relevant proceedings have been concluded by a final court judgment or when they are still pending. They must institute this complaint within one year of the law coming into force.   (b)   Case law of the European Court of Human Rights   15.   For a detailed analysis of the new law, see the admissibility decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Panayi v. Cyprus (Application No. 46370/09). In this decision, the European Court stated that “[it] is satisfied, in view of the legislative provisions as they stand, that the aggregate of remedies provided by Law 2(I)/2010 in cases of excessively long proceedings in civil and administrative cases that have been concluded or are pending at first instance or on appeal is effective in the sense that the remedies are in principle capable of both preventing the continuation of the alleged violation of the right to a hearing without undue delay and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred”.   16.   The Court dismissed the above application as inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the facts occurred before the remedy was in place and as such, under s.5(2) of the Law, the remedy had been available to the applicant for a year from the date of the entry into force of the law. It can be taken from this decision, therefore, that the remedy instituted by the Cypriot authorities is considered effective in principle.   (c)   Domestic judicial practice   17.   As this new law came into force relatively recently, the Cypriot authorities have indicated that it is too early to have domestic case law on its implementation. This is likely to take some time, considering also that a large number of cases seeking compensation from the Republic of Cyprus are settled.   18.   However, there has been one case which was decided by the district court by virtue of the new law. The district court dismissed the action as it did not find that under the circumstances the period of four years and a half for determination of the relevant proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 (1) of the Convention. The plaintiffs have lodged an appeal against this judgment which is pending for determination by the Supreme Court. More recently four other similar cases have also been lodged with the domestic courts. Efforts for securing a settlement in one of those have been unsuccessful and as a result, the case was heard and the court reserved its judgment. The other three cases are set for hearing.   Conclusion   The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case.