by Werner WOHLMANN and Gabriele WOHLMANN
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Reistrar,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The case originated in an application lodged with the Court on 2 March 2007 by Mr Werner Wohlmann and Mrs Gabriele Wohlmann, German nationals who were born in 1934 and 1937 respectively and live in Leidersbach. They were represented before the Court by Rechtsanwälte Deißler, Krauß & Domcke, a law firm in Munich. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Almut Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, Federal Ministry of Justice.
On 28 August 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of a set of court proceedings for damages which they had initiated and which lasted from 22 December 1986 to 15 September 2006 as well as their complaint concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the duration of such proceedings.
On 23 February 2009 the Court received an agreement on a friendly settlement of the case signed by the Government and the applicants’ representative on 17 and 18 February 2009 respectively under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay them EUR 25,000 to cover any conceivable claims, in particular compensation for the applicants as well as costs and expenses. This sum would be payable within one month 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 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 Westerdiek Rait Maruste