FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51976/08
by Gerhard O. Wirges and Quicknaut GmbH
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Gerhard O. Wirges, a German national living in Hamburg, who is the managing director of the second applicant, the Quicknaut GmbH, a limited liability company possessing legal personality under German law. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. Ferslev, a lawyer practising in Hamburg. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr H.-J. Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
On 6 July 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of a set of civil proceedings for damages which had been initiated against them in July 1991 and which were still pending at that time.
On 27 October 2009 the Court received an agreement on a friendly settlement of the case signed by the Government and the applicants’ representative on 16 October 2009 under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Germany in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay them EUR 10,000 to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which 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. 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