European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sunil Arunkoemar SIEWNATH v the Netherlands - 23784/08 [2010] ECHR 1766 (12 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1766.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1766
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
23784/08
by Sunil Arunkoemar SIEWNATH
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet
Fura,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Sunil Arunkoemar Siewnath, a Dutch national who was born in 1969 and lives in Hoogvliet. He was represented before the Court by Ms I.N. Weski, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms Liselot Egmond, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 4 of the Convention that his appeal against the prolongation of his extended detention on remand had not been heard “speedily”.
On 24 March 2010 and 10 June 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Netherlands in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 2,500 euros (EUR) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as EUR 4,448.22 to cover any and all costs and expenses, which would be free of any taxes that might be applicable and payable within six weeks 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 this sum within the said six-week period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
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.
Santiago Quesada Elisabet Fura
Registrar President
