SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 63717/12 Ennu GANSEN against Estonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Ksenija Turković, President, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Georges Ravarani, judges,

and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2012,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Ennu Gansen, is an Estonian national, who was born in 1963 and is detained in Tartu. He was represented before the Court by Ms S. Sepp, a lawyer practising in Tartu.

The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had had no access to a court.

On 12 November 2015 and 30 November 2015 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Estonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 5,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. 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 the 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. 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 February 2016 .

Abel Campos Ksenija Turković              Deputy Registrar President