FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22789/09
by Mikko Juhani MARTTINEN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 April 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Mikko Juhani Marttinen, a Finnish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Helsinki. He was represented before the Court by Ms Tuula Ylinen, 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 Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his criminal proceedings.
On 21 January 2010 and 28 January 2010 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 costs and expenses, which will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum 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 undertook 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
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 (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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy