FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36186/10
Pasi KANERVA
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 June 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Pasi Kanerva, is a Finnish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Laukkoski. He was represented before the Court by Mr Antti Riihelä, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.
The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and a lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
On 29 June and 16 July 2012 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 11,500 euros to cover any 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 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 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 AracıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy