FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 58616/09
by Ursula Marie GREBING
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on
28 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2009,
Having regard to the formal declaration accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Ursula Marie Grebing, a German national who was born in 1933 and lives in Berlin. She was represented before the Court by Mr O. Döfke, a lawyer practising in Berlin. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr H.-J. Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of social court proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. On 22 February 2010 the Court communicated the application to the Government.
On 16 July 2010 the Court received an agreement on a friendly settlement of the case signed by the Government on 25 June 2010 and by the applicant on 2 July 2010, under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Germany in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her
3,500 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and which 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 pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy