SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42102/11
José Augusto GONÇALVES RAMOS
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2011,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr José Augusto Gonçalves Ramos, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Lisbon (Portugal).
The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of tort liability proceedings against the State in which he was a party.
On 7 October and 5 December 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Portugal in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. 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.
Stanley NaismithDragoljub Popović
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy