FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 59116/12 ngelo AUBERT MENDES DE MORAIS against Portugal

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 22 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabeth Steiner , President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Erik Møse , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 11 May 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr ngelo Aubert Mendes de Morais , is a French and Portuguese national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Cascais (Portugal) .

The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Gra ç a Carvalho , Deputy Attorney-General .

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings in which he was involved and that lasted sixteen years, before three levels of jurisdiction.

The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 11 May 2015 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.

The declaration provided as follows:

“ Je soussignée, M. F. da Gra ç a Carvalho, Procureur général adjoint, d é clare que le gouvernement portugais offre de verser à M. ngelo Aubert Mendes de Morais , la somme de 13.000,00 ( treize mille euros ) couvrant tout préjudice moral et la somme de 500,00 (cinq cent euros) couvrant l ’ ensemble des frais et d é pens, au titre de la requ ê te enregistrée sous le n º 59116/12, portant sur le d é lai raisonnable.

Ces sommes seront exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable et seront payées dans les trois mois suivant la date de notification de la décision de radiation rendue par la Cour sur le fondement l ’ article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention. Le paiement vaudra règlement définitif de la cause.

A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s ’ engage à verser, à compter de l ’ expiration de celui-ci et jusqu ’ au règlement effectif des sommes en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilit é de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augment é de trois points de pourcentage.

Le Gouvernement reconna î t qu ’ en l ’ espèce il y a eu violation de l ’ article 6 § 1 de la Convention. ”

The applicant failed to reply to the Government ’ s proposal.

The Cour t 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”.

It also re iterates t hat 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.

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

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Portugal , 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 ; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007 ; regarding Portugal see Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal , no. 33729/06 , 10 June 2008 ).

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)).

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 ).

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).

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 15 October 2015 .

André Wampach Elisabeth Steiner Deputy Registrar President