FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11123/10
by Matti Johannes RUOHONIEMI
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 June 2010 as a Committee composed of:

and Fatoş Aracı, .
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2010,
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 Matti Johannes Ruohoniemi, a Finnish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Vantaa. He was represented before the Court by Mr Markku Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection.
 On  19 and 25 May 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 13,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which 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 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 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.
	Fatoş Aracı	
	Deputy Registrar	President