FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15263/10
Scott ASHTON
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 March 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Scott Ashton, is a British national, who was born in 1972 and is currently detained in HMP Kirkham. He was represented before the Court by Chivers Solicitors, a firm of solicitors based in Bingley.
The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Addis, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the delay in his Parole Board review from October 2009 to September 2010, relying on the Court’s judgment in Betteridge v. the United Kingdom, no. 1497/10, 29 January 2013. He further complained under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaint.
On 15 April 2014 and 7 May 2014 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the United Kingdom in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him seven hundred and fifty hundred (750) euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy