SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3625/08 by Ana ILEÅ against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Danutė Jočienė , Dragoljub Popović , András Sajó , Işıl Karakaş , judges, and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 January 2008 ,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ana Ileš, is a Serbian citizen who was born in 1991 and currently lives in Smederevo. She was represented before the Court by Ms S. Pećanac, a lawyer practising in the same town. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were re presented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows.

Following many years of litigation, on 5 February 2003 the Municipal Court ( Op Å¡ tinski sud ) in Smederevo ruled that P.A. was the applicant ' s biological father and ordered him to pay child maintenance in the amount of 15% of his monthly salary from 26 April 2001 to 1 June 2001, 10% of his monthly salary thereafter, as well as the already accrued maintenance within a period of fifteen days.

This judgment became final by 28 May 2003.

On 13 December 2004 the applicant filed a new claim with the Municipal Court in Smederevo, seeking an increase in the maintenance awarded. In particular, she requested that the monthly maintenance be fixed at 6,000 dinars, at that time equivalent to approximately 80 euros.

After a couple of remittals, on 5 November 2007 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant.

On 26 June 2008 the District Court upheld this decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the second set of proceedings. She further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective domestic remedy at her disposal in order to expedite the m.

THE LAW

On 9 September 2008 the applicant accepted a friendly settlement offer, whereby the Government promised to pay her ex gratia 1,200 euros. The applicant, in return, agreed to withdraw her application and waived any further claims in respect of the present case.

On the same day the respondent state paid the above-specified amount and the applicant informed the Court that she withdr e w her application .

In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant no longer wish es to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Sally Dollé F. Tulkens Registrar President