FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30504/03 by Georgios GEORGIADES against Cyprus

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President, Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , judges, and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2003 ,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the parties ’ correspondence,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgios Georgiades , is a Cypriot national who was born in Limassol in 1940 and lives in Nicosia . He was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Georgiades , a lawyer practising in Nicosia . The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Clerides , Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 22 April 1997 the applicant lodged civil action (no. 4753/97) before the District Court of Nicosia requesting damages for breach of certain express or implied contractual obligations by third parties.

On 16 July 1997 the applicant filed his statement of claim. Following a number of extensions the defendants filed their defence statement in April 1998. After a number of adjournments the hearing commenced on 7 April 2000 and was completed on 26 May 2000 . During the hearing the court did not allow the applicant to submit evidence about a document in relation to which both parties had made a common declaration, since it considered that such evidence would essentially contradict the prior declaration setting out the facts accepted by the parties as established.

On 1 June 2000 the district court dismissed the action.

On 12 July 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (civil appeal no. 10867). The case was set for instructions on 16 October 2002 and for hearing on 19 March 2003 . On the latter date the court delivered its judgment rejecting the appeal on the following grounds: “We have patiently listened to the appellant ’ s advocate and after the long debate which followed it was shown that the first instance court acted in a correct manner, evaluated evidence admitted before it and reached its findings. The court had not conducted any substantial fault, legal or factual, and therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs”.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings with regard to firstly, the failure of the Supreme Court to adequately reason its judgment dismissing his appeal and secondly, the district court ’ s decision of certain evidence in support of his claims.

2. The applicant further complained under the above provision about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Cypriot courts.

3. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 that the lack of adequate reasoning in the Supreme Court ’ s judgment constituted unjustified differential treatment as compared to other litigants.

THE LAW

By letter dated 3 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case. Subsequently, by letter dated 3 May 2006 , the Government informed the Court that the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus had approved the terms of the friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 4 ,000 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of his claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. By letter dated 26 May 2006 the app licant confirmed the settlement and informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue his application.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and the applicant ’ s wish not to pursue his application . It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should de discontinued and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention ;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President