FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 59421/14 Joseph GATT and Others against Malta

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Egidijus KÅ«ris , President, Vincent A. D e Gaetano, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,

and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 2014,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 6 June 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2. The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr P. Grech , Attorney General. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.

3. On 25 February 2016 the application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

4. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings. They noted that they remained victims of the violation upheld by the Constitutional Court, as the award of compensation (3,000 euros (EUR)) was too low.

5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 6 June 2016 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 Government acknowledged the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved. They offered to pay EUR 4,000 as just satisfaction in the light of the Court ’ s case-law, such as that in Zarb v. Malta (no. 16631/04, 4 July 2006) and Debono v. Malta (no. 34539/02, 7 February 2006) and invited the Court to strike out the case of the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The sum, which was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three months 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.

7. By a letter received by the Court on 29 June 2016, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the cases cited by the Government had referred to shorter delays. They considered that they would not accept a sum which was lower than that granted by the first-instance domestic court, namely EUR 12,000, to which costs had to be added.

8. The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application 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 reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.

10. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Malta , 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 ‑ V; and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta , no. 35829/03, §§ 36-43, 24 October 2006 ).

12. The Court notes that the sum awarded by the last-instance court in a final judgment at the domestic level, in the present case the Constitutional Court, remains payable to the applicant (see, for example, mutatis mutandis , Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 26771/07, § 26, 3 September 2013).

13. Having regard to the above and 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)).

14. Moreover, 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 of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

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. 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 modalities 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 6 October 2016 .

Andrea Tamietti Egidijus KÅ«ris              Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

N o .

Firstname LASTNAME

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

Representative

Joseph GATT

28/02/1958

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT

Alexandra CARUANA

27/07/1966

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT

Carmel GATT

16/08/1959

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT

Miriam GATT

03/01/1961

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT

Paul GATT

01/09/1964

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT

Speranza GATT

(as curatrix of Philip GATT)

09/10/1931

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT

William GATT

25/07/1968

Maltese

Mosta

J. BRINCAT