FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15260/11
Heidi Susanna SIPILÄINEN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2011,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Heidi Susanna Sipiläinen, is a Finnish national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Tampere. She was represented before the Court by Mr Tommi Koivistoinen, a lawyer practising in Tampere.
The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about the search of her domicile by the police and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about this search.
On 30 May and 18 June 2012 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 3,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as 1,000 euros (inclusive of value-added tax) to cover any costs and expenses, which would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 would 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. 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy