SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17144/06
by Kari Johannes AURIMAA
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 8 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Kari Johannes Aurimaa, is a Finnish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Vantaa. The Lithuanian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė.
On 21 October 2009 the Court decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government in respect of the applicant's complaint of a violation of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, involving criminal and civil proceedings to which he was a party.
Subsequently the Court received declarations from the parties for a friendly settlement of the case. In these declarations, the Government undertake to pay the applicant 2,400 EUR (two thousand four hundred euros) and the applicant agrees to waive any further claims against Lithuania in respect of the facts giving rise to the application. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, and will be free of any taxes which may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy