FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28118/10
by P.J.
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 May 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms P.J., is a Finnish national. The President of the Chamber has granted the applicant’s request that her identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). She was represented before the Court by Ms Sanna Koponen, a lawyer practising in Lahti. 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 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.
On 16 and 31 March 2011 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 her 7,500 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as 1,000 euros (inclusive of value-added tax) for costs and expenses. The sums 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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.
Fatoş AracıSverre Erik Jebens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy