CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 December 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 41151/20 ALTIUS INSURANCE LTD against Cyprus lodged on 8 September 2020 communicated on 16 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE A company unsuccessfully lodged civil proceedings (no. 4099/2004) against the applicant for breach of contract. On appeal (no. 28/2011) the Supreme Court ordered the applicant to pay 1,823,767 euros (EUR), plus accrued legal interest from the beginning of civil proceedings no.   4099/2004. As a result, in addition to the judgment debt, the applicant paid the company EUR 1,350,000 for legal interest. Subsequently the applicant lodged civil proceedings (no. 2/2018) with the Supreme Court under the Law Providing for Effective Remedies for Exceeding the Reasonable Time Requirement for the Determination of Civil Rights and Obligations (Law 2(I)/2010) seeking non-pecuniary damages for the length of proceedings no. 4099/2004 and no. 28/2011, plus pecuniary damages for the excess legal interest it had to pay as a result of the protracted proceedings. The Supreme Court fragmented the examination of the proceedings, dismissed the claim for the length of proceedings no.   4099/2004 and granted the applicant EUR 5,000 as non-pecuniary damages for the length of appeal proceedings no. 28/2011. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 about the overall length of the proceedings concerning the breach of contract. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 that it did not have a fair trial on account of the Supreme Court’s decision to declare inadmissible the complaint concerning the length of proceedings no. 4099/2004 which led to a fragmentation of the proceedings and to dismiss the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the length of proceedings, without adequate reasoning. The applicant further complains about the effectiveness of Law 2(I)/2010 since the length of proceedings was not examined as a whole in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it was arbitrarily deprived of its property due to the obligation to pay excessive accrued legal interest which was the result of the lengthy domestic proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Supreme Court’s decision to declare inadmissible the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of first instance proceedings (no. 4099/04) and claims concerning possible damages arising as a result of the overall length of proceedings? In particular:   (a)     was that decision arbitrary, or manifestly unreasonable; and/or   (b)     was it the consequence of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term ‘final domestic judgment’ (‘τελεσίδικη δικαστική απόφαση’) to mean final judgment regardless of whether it is subject to appeal (‘ο όρος τελεσίδικη απόφαση έχει την έννοια της τελικής απόφασης χωρίς να συναρτάται με το δικαίωμα έφεσης’) (see the judgment appended to the application form), or regardless of the fact that the applicant’s duty to pay damages was only generated upon appeal no. 28/2011?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings (nos. 4099/04 and 28/11) in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     In the particular circumstances of the case, given the Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of Law 2(I)/2010 as requiring that claims for just satisfaction be lodged separately with each level of jurisdiction, did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy, in practice, for its Article   6   §   1 complaint as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, as a consequence of the length of the proceedings, given the applicant’s obligation to pay excess accrued interest? If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?