The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr J.N., is a Finnish national. The President of the Section granted the applicant’s request that his identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). He was represented before the Court by Mr Risto Tuori, 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 Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he had not been able to defend himself in person and that no legal counsel had been appointed to him even though such was necessary considering the gravity of the accusations against him.
On 9 January and 12 January 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 him 3,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros to cover any costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added tax), which would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. These sums would 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 would constitute the final resolution of the case.
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.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki