SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43509/06
by Dragiša PAUNOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2006,
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 Dragiša Paunović, a Serbian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Beograd. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Savić, a lawyer practising in Beograd. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by S. Carić, the Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party.
On 5 November 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 2,600 (two thousand six hundred euros) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into national currency 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 undertake 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy