CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2025

.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 3 February 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22443/21 Ioannis ZEMBYLAS against Cyprus lodged on 26 April 2021 communicated on 14 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of civil proceedings and the applicant’s subsequent civil claim for damages on account of the excessive length of those proceedings. A company unsuccessfully sued the applicant, among others, for negligence and breach of contract (no. 14276/2003). On 21 December 2011 the plaintiff appealed (no. 467/2011). On 15 February 2018 the Supreme Court reversed the first instance decision and awarded the plaintiff pecuniary damages, plus interest starting from 21 November 2011. Subsequently the applicant lodged civil proceedings (no. 2/2019) 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 the proceedings (no. 14276/2003 and no. 467/2011), plus pecuniary damages for the excess and accrued legal interest it had allegedly had to pay because of the protracted proceedings. During the hearing of the case, the parties stated in court that they had agreed that the applicant should be awarded 2,500 euros (EUR) in non ‑ pecuniary damage for a violation of the reasonable time requirement and that the sole issue remaining for examination was the claim for pecuniary damage. On 29 October 2020 the Supreme Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in non-pecuniary damages for the delay in the proceedings as agreed by the parties. It examined and dismissed the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing and an effective remedy in that respect has been violated in that Law 2(I)/2010 precluded the examination of the overall length of proceedings. He further complained under the same Articles of the Supreme Court’s failure to award him pecuniary damages which were a direct consequence of the excessive length of the appeal proceedings. In addition, the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that he was arbitrarily deprived of his property due to the obligation to pay accrued legal interest which was the direct result of the lengthy domestic proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 §   1 and Article 13 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, on the basis that Law 2(I)/2010 precluded the examination of the overall length of the proceedings, in view of his agreement to accept the amount of 2,500 euros as full settlement for any non-pecuniary damage for the delay in the proceedings?   In reply to this question the parties are requested to provide the Court with the relevant record of the court proceedings or other documents indicating the above-mentioned agreement between the parties, as referred to in pages 3 and   4 of the judgment of 29 October 2019 (no. 2/2019).   2.     If so, was the length of the civil proceedings (nos. 14276/2003 and   467/2011) in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Altius Insurance Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 41151/20, §§ 87-90, 24   October 2023)?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 § 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, Altius Insurance Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 41151/20, §§ 79-83, 24 October 2023)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, because of the length of the appeal proceedings, given the applicant’s obligation to pay accrued legal interest as from 21 November 2011? If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, Hunguest Zrt v. Hungary, no. 66209/10, § 25, 30   August 2016, and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?