FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20721/05
by B. and Others 
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations of the second applicant and the Government of the United Kingdom (“the Government”) accepting a friendly settlement of the second applicant’s case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
 The applicants are Algerian nationals, represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors (“Bhatt Murphy”). The first applicant was born in 1966 and lived in Leicester; the second applicant was born in 1970 and lived in Birmingham; the third applicant was born in 1979 and lived in London. The  first and third applicants have been deported from the United Kingdom to Algeria and are thought currently to be in custody in Algeria.
The applicants were detained in the United Kingdom under the same provision as the applicants in A. and Others v United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, namely under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. The applicants complained that their detention was in breach of Articles 5 and 14 of the Convention.
The Court received the following declaration from the Government under cover of a letter dated 15 June 2009. The declaration is signed and dated 16 June 2009:
“I, Derek Walton, Agent for the Government of the United Kingdom, declare that the Government of the United Kingdom offer to pay ex gratia, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the first applicant, the sum of 400 euros; the second applicant, 3,300 euros; the third applicant, 400 euros; plus 3,000 euros jointly to all three applicants in respect of legal costs and expenses with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums will be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The Court received a letter from Bhatt Murphy dated 17 June 2009. The letter enclosed a declaration in the following terms, signed by the firm on 12 June 2009 and by the second applicant on 22 May 2009. The letter stated that the firm had been unable to make contact with the first and third applicants in order to take their instruction as to settlement:
“We, Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, note that the Government of the United Kingdom are prepared to pay ex gratia, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the second applicant, 3,300 euros; plus 3,000 euros jointly to all three applicants in respect of legal costs and expenses with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums will be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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.
Having consulted my clients, I would inform you that they accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the United Kingdom in respect of facts giving rise to these applications. They declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Registry wrote to Bhatt Murphy on 16 July 2009 asking whether the case should now be struck out. Bhatt Murphy replied on 30 July 2009 stating that they hoped to make contact with the applicants and that they did not have instructions to consent to a strike out. The Registry acknowledged this letter and asked Bhatt Murphy to inform the Registry of any developments by 30 September 2009. Bhatt Murphy wrote to the Registry on 25 September 2009, stating that they had been unable to make any contact with either the first or the third applicants. The Registry replied on 16 July 2009 stating that the Court would now consider whether the applications should be struck out.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the Government and the second applicant, pursuant to which the Government will pay 3,300 euros to the second applicant in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 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 of the second applicant (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In of the above, it is appropriate to strike the second applicant’s case out of the list.
Further, the Court considers that the first and third applicants have failed to pursue their applications and that there is no current prospect of their doing so.
The Court notes that, following any strike out, the first and/or third applicants could, if they were to re-establish contact with Bhatt Murphy or with the Court, apply under 43 § 5 of the Rules of Court to have their cases restored to the list.
In these circumstances, it is no longer justified within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention to continue the examination of their applications. The Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of their applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In of the above, it is appropriate to strike the first and third applicants’ cases out of the list.
As to costs, the Court notes that the Government offered 3,000 euros jointly to all of the applicants and that only the second applicant is in a position to accept their offer. However, in the circumstances, the Court considers that it would be reasonable to require the Government to pay the full amount offered in respect of joint legal costs to the second applicant alone, pursuant to Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the applications of the first, second and third applicants out of its list of cases;
Further decides that the Government should 3,000 euros to the second applicant in respect of legal costs.
	Lawrence Early	Lech Garlicki
	Registrar	President