Cvetnic v. Croatia

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 50337/09 by Davor CVETNIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 April 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Julia Laffranque, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 September 2009,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Davor Cvetnić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Sisak. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Jerkovac, an advocate practising in Sisak. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his civil proceedings.

On 1 and 11 March 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 2,600 euros (EUR) to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. These sums would be converted into Croatian kunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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 this sum within the said three-month 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 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.

André Wampach Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar President