SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 20429/02 by Aleka PAPAKOKKINOU and Vereggaria PAPAKOKKINOU against Cyprus

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) , sitting on 7 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr Gaukur Jörundsson , Mr L. Loucaides , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 25 April 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mrs Aleka Papakokkinou and Mrs Vereggaria Papakokkinou, are Cypriot nationals who were born in 1945 and 1930 respectively and live in Nicosia.

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

The first applicant owns some shops and the second a building in the town of Paphos . On 19 September 1985 they lodged two actions in the District Court of Paphos for damages (no. 1621/85 and no. 1961/85) against neighbours who owned an adjacent building.

As regards the first action, due to the defendant’s absence abroad, the District Court decided to notify the action to the latter’s husband on 1 March 1986. The Court fixed the case for mention on 9 January 1989. On 2 February 1989 the defendant filed a request to have the action dismissed. On 27 February 1989 the District Court ordered an on-the-spot inspection by the Office of Land and Surveys. On 19 November 1991 the defendants requested the District Court to join the actions. The first applicant objected. On 31 March 1992 the District Court decided to join the actions.

The second action was notified to the defendant’s husband on 27 February 1986. The defendant submitted her defence on 27 October 1987 and the hearing was fixed for 15 March 1991. On that date the hearing was adjourned until 21 June 1991 and then (because one of the defendants had not submitted a defence) until 13 November 1991 and thereafter until 28 February 1992 (because the Court had to decide on a motion filed by the defendants). On 31 March 1992 the action was joined to the first action.

The Office of Land and Surveys submitted its report on 26 September 1995. However, as the Office realised that the report contained inaccurate conclusions, it requested the District Court not to take the report into consideration until it had carried out a new inspection, which was eventually conducted on 21 June 1996. The applicants were informed of these developments on 29 July 1996.

In the meantime the District Court fixed the case for mention for 23 February 1995, 10 April 1995, 3 May 1995, 24 May 1995 and 13 June 1995.

The hearing began on 30 January 1996. It should have continued on 8 April 1996, but on that date it was adjourned until 30 May 1996, and subsequently until 24 June 1996 and 30 October 1996, pending the completion of the inspection.

On the last-mentioned date the hearing had to be adjourned until 8 January 1997 and then until 12 March 1997, 9 April 1997 and 8 July 1997. The hearing resumed on 8 June 1997, but the applicants had to ask for an adjournment because one of the witnesses, whom they considered important, was abroad for health reasons. The District Court rejected the request and continued the proceedings. The hearing was fixed to continue on 25 September 1997. On that date it was adjourned until 3 October 1997 and (because the President was engaged in other proceedings in the Assize Court) until 4 December 1997 and thereafter until 14 January 1998.

The hearing continued on 17 February 1998, 24 March 1998, 28 April 1998, 21 May 1998, 11 June 1998 and 29 June 1998.

Judgment was delivered on 10 December 1998. The District Court dismissed the applicants’ action and ordered the applicants to bear the defendants’ costs. The applicants appealed. They complained, inter alia , of the excessive length of the proceedings.

On 8 March 1999 the applicants requested the District Court to revise the Registrar’s decision (as approved by the court on 1 March 1999) concerning costs, which they considered excessive. On 9 July 1999 the District Court dismissed the request.

On 30 June 2000 the applicants submitted, at the request of the Supreme Court, amended grounds of appeal.

On 1 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal. As regards the applicants’ complaint that the District Court had refused to adjourn the case, the Supreme Court held that the matter fell within the discretionary power of the courts and that in the present case the District Court noted that the witness was not summoned to appear by the applicants and that there was no evidence that the she was absent because of health reasons.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

2. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair hearing has been breached.

3. The applicants also allege a violation of Articles 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain of the length of the proceedings in the District Court of Paphos and the Supreme Court. They allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 which, as far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicants allege a double violation of their right to a fair hearing: firstly, they complain of the fact that the District Court dismissed their request to adjourn the hearing because one of their witnesses was unavailable on that date; secondly, they allege that the costs which they had to pay the defendants were excessive.

As regards the first part of the complaint, the Court notes that the District Court had to decide a civil dispute between neighbours and, to this end, it commissioned an expert report from an official institution, the Office of Land and Surveys. It further considers that by refusing to adjourn the case because of the absence of the witness, the District Court exercised a discretionary power which does not appear to be unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.

As regards the second part of the complaint, the Court notes that the District Court approved the costs assessed by the Registrar and then dismissed the applicants’ request for a revision of the bill. It considers that having lost the case, the applicants could be expected to bear the costs of the other side. How these costs were to be assessed was essentially a matter for the domestic authorities. The Court finds that there is nothing to suggest that the assessment made was arbitrary or punitive.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. Finally, the applicants allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.

The Court notes that both complaints are unsubstantiated. In particular, as regards the first complaint, in so far as it may be understood to concern the decision of the domestic courts to dismiss the applicants’ action and to award costs to the defendants, the Court recalls that the fact that an action for damages between private individuals is decided by a court in favour of one party on the basis of the law in force does not in itself engage the responsibility of a State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; nor does the fact that an unsuccessful party is obliged to pay his opponent’s costs. Given that there is no arguable claim of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it must be concluded that there is no appearance of a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. In any event, the applicants were able to have a decision on the merits of their action for damages in accordance with a fair procedure and, as regards costs, to seek revision of the order made by the Registrar.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President