FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 6200/10 Stuart WILKIE against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 March 2013 as a Chamber composed of:

Ineta Ziemele , President , David Thór Björgvinsson , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , Vincent A. De Gaetano , Paul Mahoney , Faris Vehabović , judges , and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 January 2010,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 December 2012 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 AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Stuart Wilkie , is a British national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kings Lynn. He was not represented in the proceedings before the Court.

2. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Tomlinson of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3(c) of the Convention about the fairness – and more particularly about the length –of his civil proceedings.

4. His complaint concerning the length of domestic proceedings was communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 21 December 2012 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.

6. The declaration provided as follows:

“1. The Government of the United Kingdom accept that, in the particular circumstances of this case, there has been a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. The applicant ’ s action commenced on 22 May 1998 and was not concluded until 28 July 2009. Having regard to the nature of the case and to all the circumstances, the United Kingdom Government accept that this was excessive. It notes in particular the concern about delays expressed by the Court itself in April 2003. A proof was not in fact commenced until November 2005 and was not completed until December 2006, with the decision at first instance being issued in August 2007. The appeal was disposed of in July 2009.

3. Since the conclusion of the applicant ’ s action, there have been developments directed to improving the civil justice system in Scotland . In particular: -

(a) following a report by Lord Penrose issued in 2009, the arrangements for Inner House business have been substantially amended. In particular, the Rules of Court have, since April 2010, provided for an automatic timetable to be issued for reclaiming motions (appeals) in the Inner House, and for a procedural hearing to be held at which the procedural judge has various powers, including powers to make orders to secure the expeditious disposal of the reclaiming motion: Rules of the Court of Session (RCS) 38.13, 38.16. The new arrangements are supported by a Practice Note, No. 3 of 2011, which had effect from 27 September 2011.

(b) In 2007 Lord Gill, then Justice-Clerk, and now Lord President of the Court of Session, was commissioned to undertake an extensive review of the structure, jurisdiction, procedures and working methods of the Scottish civil courts. His review, published in 2009, made 206 recommendations for reform. As well as making recommendations about court structures, the Review recommended a number of improvements to case management procedures and court processes. The Scottish Government published its response to the review in 2010, and largely agreed with the recommendations. The Scottish Government has set up a managed programme of reform to facilitate implementation of the recommendations and aims to consult early in 2013 on a draft bill.

4. In light of the above and in the particular circumstances of the applicant ’ s case, the Government offers to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 5,400 (five thousand four hundred Euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as any costs and expenses, to be paid in pounds sterling into a bank account nominated by the applicant within three months from the date of the striking-out decision of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention. This payment will constitute final settlement of the applicant ’ s case.”

7. By a letter of 7 February 2013, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that he did not consider it to be adequate compensation for proceedings which had lasted more than eleven years.

8. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part thereof 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” .

9. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof 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.

10. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration 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 SulwiÅ„ska v. Poland ( dec .) no. 28953/03).

11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including 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).

12. 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)).

13 . 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

14. The Court understands that the amount offered by the Government should be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and 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.

15. 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).

16. The Court has also examined the complaint under Article 6 § 3(c) but finds, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

For these reasons , the Court:

1. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

2. Decides by a majority to strike the part of the application which concerns the length of the civil proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 §§ 1 (c) of the Convention;

3. Declares unanimously the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Lawrence Early Ineta Ziemele Registrar President