CHRISTOPHI proti Kypru

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 24612/03
by Elli Iordani CHRISTOPHI
against Cyprus

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2003,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the partial decision of 12 January 2006,

Having regard to the parties’ correspondence,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Elli Iordani Christophi, is a Cypriot national who lives in Limassol. She was represented before the Court by Mr E. Efstathiou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus.

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

The applicant was the owner of two plots of land (nos. 400 and 401) in the village Ayios Tychonas in the Amathunda district of Limassol. These plots were classified under the Antiquities Law as being of archaeological importance and were within the ambit of a town planning zone subject to building restrictions. The second plot was also affected by the protected beach zone. Following a notice of expropriation (No. 768) issued on 22 April 1994, an order of expropriation (No. 159) was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus on 10 February 1995 pertaining to the applicant’s plot.

The authorities offered the applicant 15,150 Cyprus pounds (CYP) as compensation for the expropriation of her property.

The applicant lodged a civil action with the Limassol District Court for the assessment of the compensation (action no. 18/95) since she considered that the amount given by the Government did not correspond to the value of her property.

On 15 March 2001 the district court dismissed the action and upheld the compensation that had been granted by the Government.

On 25 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the findings of the district court.

On 20 February 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal upholding the first instance judgment and the compensation awarded thereby.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Cypriot Courts.

THE LAW

By letter dated 3 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the case and that the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus had approved the terms of the friendly settlement. In accordance with the agreement, the Government would pay the applicant 4,900 Cyprus pounds in full and final settlement of her claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. By letter dated 15 May 2006 the applicant confirmed the settlement.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should de discontinued and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;

Decides to strike the the application out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President