FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40163/08
by Andres NÕGISTO
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2008,
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 Andres Nõgisto, an Estonian national who was born in 1972. He was represented before the Court by Mr O. Nišajev, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg.
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about the restrictions imposed on his communication with his family during his pre-trial detention and under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings were unreasonably long.
On 9 July and 13 July 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Estonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 5,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Estonian kroons at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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. 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 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy