FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55642/07
by Ivan TALIJANČIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 November 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Talijančić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Split. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Barbir, a lawyer practising in Ploče. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 April 2002 the applicant brought a civil action against the State and the Makarska Centre for Social Welfare, challenging his dismissal from work, in the Makarska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Makarskoj).
Following the applicant's complaint about the length of proceedings, on 22 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 2,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and also ordered the Makarska Municipal Court to decide the case within six months after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court in the Official Gazette.
The proceedings are still pending before the Makarska Municipal Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in that connection.
THE LAW
On 29 January 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Croatia offer to pay ex gratia 3,850 euros to Mr Ivan Talijančić with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 undertake 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.”
On 3 February 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Croatia are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 3,850 euros to Mr Ivan Talijančić with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a 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 public policy 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.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President