CLUBE DE FUTEBOL UNIÃO DE COIMBRA v. PORTUGAL - 27295/95 [1998] ECHR 66 (30 July 1998)

judgment [4] . AS TO THE LAW 37. On 6 March 1998 the Court received a letter from the Agent of the Government in the following terms (see paragraph 10 above): “In accordance with Rule [51] § 2 of Rules of Court [B], I am pleased to inform you that the Portuguese Government and the applicant [association] have reached an agreement for a friendly settlement of the dispute by way of payment of the sum of PTE 2,500,000 (two million five hundred thousand escudos). The applicant [association] will also inform the Court of the terms of the friendly settlement that has been reached. Thus, the Portuguese Government requests that the case be struck out of the list in accordance with Rule [51] § 2 of Rules of Court [B].” The lawyer acting for the applicant association wrote the following letter, which was received on 11 May 1998 (see paragraph 12 above): “The Clube de Futebol União de Coimbra informs the Chamber that in accordance with Rule [51] § 2 of Rules of Court [B], it has reached an agreement with the Portuguese State with regard to the dispute between them. Consequently, it requests that the case be struck out of the list. Under the terms of the agreement, the Portuguese State undertakes to pay the applicant [association] a sum of PTE 2,500,000 (two million five hundred thousand escudos) in compensation for the loss caused to the applicant [association] as a result of the delays in the proceedings before the courts. That amount does not include any compensation which the applicant [association] may claim in a civil action.” The applicant association confirmed the terms of the agreement in a letter of 18 May 1998 (see paragraph 12 above). 38. After being consulted in accordance with Rule 51 § 2 of Rules of Court B, the Delegate of the Commission raised no objection (see paragraph 13 above). 39. On 5 June 1998 the Government confirmed that a friendly settlement had been reached, but asked the applicant association to clarify the last sentence of its letter of 11 May 1998 (see paragraph 14 above). 40. In a letter of 15 June 1998 the applicant association said: “(a) The European Court of Human Rights is called upon to determine whether the Portuguese took too long time to decide the applicant association’s case. (b) If it finds in favour of the applicant association, the Court must say to what extent the fact that the domestic proceedings were too long caused a loss to the association. (c) The issue to be decided by the Court is not limited merely to assessing whether the proceedings in Portugal took too long, but also has an effect on the decision on the merits, that is to say on the fact that the relevant domestic court has recognised that the applicant association’s claim is founded. (d) Clearly that decision is not part of the dispute before the European Court. (e) However, there also exists damage which resulted from the decision that was challenged in domestic proceedings and which, unless I am mistaken, the European Court has no jurisdiction to determine either. (f) The applicant association has therefore sustained damage of two types; the first arising out of the excessive length of the proceedings in Portugal, the second resulting from the fact that the Portuguese Government has taken a measure that was detrimental to the interests of the association. (g) As regards the excessive length of the domestic proceedings, the applicant association has applied to the European Court of Human Rights. (h) As regards the Government’s decision, the relevant domestic court has found in favour of the applicant association; it is therefore at the domestic level that the issue of whether damage has been caused and if so, how much, will be determined. (i) It follows that the agreement reached by the applicant association and the Portuguese State concerns only the dispute referred to the Court. (j) Indeed, it could not be otherwise as the determination of liability arising out of the contested measure is within the jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts.” 41. On 18 June 1998 the Portuguese Government definitively confirmed the terms of the friendly settlement in question in a letter, saying (see paragraph 14 above): “The clarification provided by the applicant in [his letter of 15 June 1998] with regard to the agreement reached (case in the European Court concerning the [length of the proceedings before the Portuguese administrative courts]), accords with the interpretation of the agreement proposed by the applicant and which the Government have accepted.” 42. The Court takes notice of the friendly settlement reached by the Government and the applicant association. It may nonetheless decide, having regard to its responsibilities under Article 19 of the Convention, to proceed with the consideration of the case if a reason of public policy so requires (Rule 51 §§ 2 and 4 of Rules of Court B). No such reason exists in the present case. In this connection the Court points out that in a number of earlier cases it has had occasion to consider whether the length of proceedings in the Portuguese administrative courts had been “reasonable” (see the Baraona judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 122, and the Neves e Silva judgment of 27 April 1989, Series A no. 153-A). In so doing, it clarified the nature and extent of the State’s obligations in that regard. It follows that the case should be struck out of the list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY Decides to strike the case out of the list. Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 30 July 1998 pursuant to Rule 57 § 2, second sub-paragraph, of Rules of Court B. Signed : Rudolf BERNHARDT President Signed : Herbert PETZOLD Registrar [1] . This summary by the registry does not bind the Court. Notes by the Registrar 2. The case is numbered 105/1997/889/1101. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. [3] . Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9. [4] . Note by the Registrar . For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the registry. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII