THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41045/10
Pier Marino PAOLONI
against San Marino
ITMarkIntroductionThe European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Pier Marino Paoloni, is a San Marinese national who was born in 1935 and lives in San Marino. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Simoncini, a lawyer practising in Dogana. The San Marinese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucio Leopoldo Daniele.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party.
On 8 June 2011 and 13 June 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against San Marino in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 26,500 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would 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 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.
Marialena TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy