FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39187/08
by Tanja HELIN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

	Lech Garlicki,
	Ljiljana Mijović,
	David Thór Björgvinsson,
	Ján Šikuta,

and Fatoş Aracı, 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 August 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tanja Helin, is a Finnish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Jyväskylä. 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 Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings in her case.
On 2 April 2009 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government.
THE LAW
On 2 September and 5 October 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the Government and the applicant’s counsel. 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 8,500 euros, 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 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 Aracı	Nicolas Braza
	Deputy Registrar	President