FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 65084/14 Martin WILSON against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Kristina Pardalos, President, Paul Mahoney, Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2014,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 January 2016 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 Martin Wilson, is a British national who was born in 1957 and lives in Glasgow. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Maddocks of Gabb and Co. Solicitors, a lawyer practising in Crickhowell.

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

3. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 6 § 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 34, 35, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a number of issues arising from the conduct of a civil claim for damages.

4. The complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the civil proceedings has been communicated to the Government . The remainder of the applicant ’ s complaints were declared inadmissible by the President of the Section acting as Single Judge.

THE LAW

5. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings, which lasted for nearly fourteen years (December 1997 to October 2014) for two levels of jurisdiction. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 January 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.

7. The declaration provided as follows:

“1. The Government of the United Kingdom accepts 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 case was commenced in December 1997 and a final substantive judgment was issued in March 2014. The case raised complex questions of medical causation. The duration of the proceedings was very significantly attributable to the actions of the parties, in particular the applicant. For example, as the Inner House observed, proof dates were discharged on his motion on four occasions between 2004 and 2008.

3. Nevertheless, having regard to the nature of the case and to all the circumstances, the United Kingdom Government accepts that the overall duration of these proceedings was excessive and that there has been a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6(1). The proof commenced in November 2009, almost twelve years after the case had been commenced. Following successive continuations, the proof was not concluded until 3 May 2011. The first instance decision was issued on 25 October 2011. The applicant ’ s appeal was disposed of when the substantive judgment of the Inner House was issued in March 2014.

4. As the Inner House observed, the period taken to dispose of the merits of the litigation at first instance in this case was unusual. The Inner House also explained why the proceedings in the Inner House had taken longer than usual.

5. There have in recent years been significant developments directed to improving the efficiency of the civil justice system in Scotland. In particular:-

(a) In 2007, Lord Gill, then Lord Justice-Clerk and subsequently 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 a response to the review in 2010, and largely agreed with the recommendations. The Scottish Government set up a managed programme of reform to facilitate implementation of the recommendations.

(b) In February 2014 the Scottish Government introduced the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill into the Scottish Parliament. The Bill legislated to implement many of the proposals of the Civil Court Review. Important provisions effecting structural changes to the civil court system in Scotland came into force in October 2015, and others will come into effect in 2016. Procedural changes recommended by the Civil Court Review are being taken forward by the Scottish Civil Justice Council, provision for which was made in the Scottish Civil Justice and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013. In carrying out its functions, the Council is obliged to have regard inter alia to the principle that the civil justice system should be fair, accessible and efficient.

6. 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 4,050 (Four thousand and fifty 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 decision of the Court pursuant to Article 37§1 of the Convention. This payment will constitute final settlement of the applicant ’ s case.

7. Thus, the Government respectfully invites the Court to rule that the examination of the present application is no longer justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”

8. By a letter of 21 April 2016 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration as he did not believe it provided him with just satisfaction. In particular, he submitted that the facts asserted by the Government were disputed; the amount offered was significantly less than that awarded for non-pecuniary damages in comparable cases; in asserting that his conduct contributed to the delay, the Government had failed to make a full admission of a breach of the reasonable time requirement; and finally, the proposed Scottish Law reforms to which the Government referred did not make it clear that recurrence of such delays was unlikely in future cases.

9. 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”.

10. 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

11. 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).

12. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the United Kingdom , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of o ne ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Piper v. the United Kingdom , no. 44547/10 , 21 April 2015, Beggs v. the United Kingdom , no. 25133/06, 6 November 2012 and Blake v. the United Kingdom , no. 68890/01, 26 September 2006 ).

13. 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)).

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. The Court considers that the amount offered in the unilateral declaration should be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and be 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.

16. 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).

17. 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 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 12 July 2016 .

             Renata Degener Kristina Pardalos              Deputy Registrar President