FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18937/09
by Matti Kalevi HIETANEN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
	Päivi Hirvelä,
	Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2009,
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 Kalevi Hietanen, a Finnish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Narva. He was represented before the Court by Mr Mikko Lehti, a lawyer practising in Tampere. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of his criminal proceedings.
On 3 May and 16 June 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 8,500 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It would 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 would 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.
	Fatoş Aracı	David Thór Björgvinsson
	Deputy Registrar	President