by Tommi Antero AURA
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 April 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Tommi Antero Aura, is a Finnish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Helsinki. He was represented before the Court by Mr Thomas Lillqvist, a lawyer practising in Pietarsaari. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained, inter alia, that he had been the victim of a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention in that his letters had been opened in a hospital by the personnel and that no effective remedy was available.
On 25 March 2009 the Court decided to communicate those complaints to the Government.
On 2 September and 22 September 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the Government and the applicant. 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 7,500 euros1, free of any taxes that may be applicable.
This sum 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 Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum 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 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 Nicolas Bratza
1 This sum includes EUR 7,000 pecuniary damage and EUR 500 costs and expenses (inclusive of VAT).