THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20528/07
by Yavuz ELCI
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 May 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
1. The application was lodged by Mr Yavuz Elci, who was born in Turkey in 1957 but currently holds no nationality and lives in Rotterdam. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Wiersma, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was unlawfully placed in aliens' detention. He further complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he was denied compensation for the time he spent in detention.
3. On 10 March 2010 and 11 March 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Netherlands in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 7000 Euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and 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
4. 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).
5. 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy