FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77096/13
Volker BECKER
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2013,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Volker Becker, is a German national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Suomusjärvi He was represented before the Court by Mr Vesa Laukkanen, a lawyer practising in Vaasa.
The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
On 29 August and 16 October 2014 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 3,600 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as 1,000 euros (inclusive of value-added tax) to cover any costs and expenses, which would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums 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 would 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 AracıNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy