FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 60105/10 and 60113/10 Thomas Richard LESLIE against the United Kingdom and Gerald MOONEY against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Kristina Pardalos, President, Pauliine Koskelo, Tim Eicke, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications both lodged on 12 October 2010,

Having regard to the friendly settlement of the cases agreed by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants are Thomas Richard Leslie and Gerald Mooney. They are British nationals, born in 1978 and 1973 respectively, and they live in County Down, Northern Ireland. They are represented before the Court by Ms N. Harte, a lawyer practising in Belfast with Harte Coyle Collins Solicitors.

The applicants, together with three other men, were charged with the theft of eleven quad bikes. All five pleaded guilty and received sentences of two years ’ probation and one hundred hours ’ community service.

Confiscation orders were made under Part 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of the two applicants only. They were each initially ordered to pay the full value of the bikes (that is, GBP 32,000) to the State. This was reduced on appeal to GBP 16,000 each (using the so-called “apportionment basis”).

The applicants complained to this Court under Article 6 of the Convention that the confiscation proceedings against them were unfair. They further complained that the confiscation orders made against them amounted to disproportionate interferences with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, they complained that they had no effective remedy in respect of their Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 complaints.

On 6 May 2014 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice to the Government of the complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

On 16 June 2015 the cases were adjourned at the Government ’ s request to enable the parties to pursue friendly settlement negotiations.

By letter dated 20 December 2016 the Government informed the Court that they had made a friendly settlement proposal which had been accepted by the applicants.

According to the enclosed friendly settlement declarations, the Government offered to pay the first applicant – without admission or acceptance as to the alleged violations of the Convention – the sum of EUR 19,859.24, plus interest of 8% to be calculated from 15 May 2010 until the date of payment, and EUR 15,134.75 to cover all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which includes any tax that might be due on the amount.

In respect of the second applicant, the Government offered to pay – without admission or acceptance of the alleged violations of the Convention – the sum of EUR 20,621.96, plus interest of 8 % to be calculated from 9 August 2010 until the date of payment, and EUR 15,134.75 to cover all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which includes any tax that might be due on the amount.

The Government also offered to assist both applicants in any application they might make to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in respect of the confiscation orders.

By letter dated 27 January 2017 the applicants ’ representative confirmed that they accepted the Government ’ s offer.

THE LAW

First, given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the two applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

Secondly, 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 applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 March 2017 .

             Renata Degener Kristina Pardalos              Deputy Registrar President