Last Updated on November 2, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.83275/17
Joseph CALLEJA
against Malta
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 January 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 2017,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 November 2018 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 Joseph Calleja, is a Maltese national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Qormi. He was represented before the Court by Dr J. Bonello, a lawyer practising in Valletta.
2. The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr P. Grech, Attorney General.
3. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that he remained a victim of the violation upheld by the domestic courts, given the low amount of compensation awarded, accompanied by an order of costs which exceeded by far such award.
4. The complaint had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that he remained a victim of a violation of Article 10 despite the findings of the Constitutional Court that the applicant had suffered such a breach, given that the award of compensation of 2,000 euros (EUR) was annihilated by an order of costs amounting to more than double the non‑pecuniary compensation awarded, despite the fact that the applicant had been successful in the sole object of his claim. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 12 November 2018 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:
“In the circumstances, [the] Government hereby wishes to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Consequently the Government is prepared to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 7,000 as just satisfaction which it considers to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law, as in Erdoğdu and İnce v. Turkey [GC] (nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, ECHR 1999‑IV).
The Government would suggest that the above information might be accepted by the Court as any other reason justifying the striking out of the case from the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within the three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
8. By a letter of 5 December 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum offered was too low, both because he had served prison time and because the expenses he claimed to have incurred were greater than the amount offered.
The Court reiterates 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 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.
To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case‑law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (TahsinAcar 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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Malta, its practice concerning complaints about a violation of Article 10 (see, for example, Falzon v. Malta, no. 45791/13, 20 March 2018; John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta, no. 17320/10, 22 November 2011; Aquilina andOthers v. Malta, no. 28040/08, 14 June 2011 andLombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, 24 April 2007).
The Court notes that the sum awarded by the last‑instance court in a final judgment at the domestic level, in the present case the Constitutional Court, remains payable to the applicant (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Gera de Petri TestaferrataBoniciGhaxaqv. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 26771/07, § 26, 3 September 2013).
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 10 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 21 February 2019.
FatoşAracı Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply