FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 29 January 2010
 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
Application no. 16081/08
by M.
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and Fatoş Aracı, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
 The application was lodged by Ms M. , a Ugandan national who was born in 1989 and lives in Hounslow. The President of the Chamber has granted the applicant's request that her identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Weiss of the Aire Centre, a lawyer practising in London, and by Ms C. Robinson of Fisher Meredith LLP and Ms P. Chandran of 1 Pump Court Chambers. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The applicant, who claimed to have been the victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution in Uganda and the United Kingdom, complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that if she were returned to Uganda there would be a severe deterioration in her mental health. The applicant further complained under Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention there was a real risk that if she were returned she would again fall into the hands of traffickers and be subjected to ill-treatment and forced sexual labour.
 On  16 September 2009 the Aire Centre wrote to the Court to confirm that the applicant and the Government had reached a friendly settlement. By letter dated 27 October 2009 the Aire Centre confirmed the terms of the friendly settlement. The Government have agreed to grant the applicant three years' leave to remain in the United Kingdom and they have further agreed to pay the costs incurred in the applicant's legal representation before the Court.
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	Lech Garlicki
	Deputy Registrar	President