THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 57511/14 Kostas DIMITRIOU against Cyprus

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Dmitry Dedov , President, Alena Poláčková , Gilberto Felici , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 August 2014,

Having regard to the declaration submi tted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant ’ s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr N. Kallis , a lawyer practising in Limassol.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lengthy enforcement of the final judgment of 27 March 2014 by the Supreme Court in the applicant ’ s favour were communicated to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application.

The Government acknowledged the lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgment of 27 March 2014 by the Supreme Court (no. 2/2013) and declared that they were ready to enforce the domestic judgment which was still subject to execution. They also offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

By letter of 31 March 2020 the applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s request to strike out the application.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the lengthy or delayed non-enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, their readiness to enforce the domestic judgment in question 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)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Dmitry Dedov Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded for

non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

57511/14

09/08/2014

Kostas DIMITRIOU

06/10/1972

Kallis Nikos

Limassol

16/01/2020

31/03/2020

3,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant .