SECOND SECTION

DECISION
Application no. 5699/07
by Svetislav BRÐANIN and Aleksandar BRÐANIN
against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 Decembre 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
 The applicants, Mr Svetislav Brđanin (“the first applicant”) and Mr Aleksandar Brđanin (“the second applicant”), are Serbian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1989, respectively, and live in Kragujevac. They were represented before the Court by Mr S. Kovačević, a lawyer practising in the same town. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 May 1985 the first applicant and T.B., the second applicant's father, filed a civil claim with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kraljevo against their cousins, seeking determination of their late grandfather's estate.
Following a remittal and T.B.'s death, in April 2002 the Municipal Court formally recognised the second applicant as a plaintiff in his own right.
 On 10 April 2006 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicants, but on 31 October 2006 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kraljevo quashed this decision on appeal and ordered a retrial.
On 14 September 2007 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a separate case.
COMPLAINTS
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complained about the excessive length of their civil suit.
THE LAW
On 15 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Serbia offer to pay ex gratia 5,600 euros to Mr Svetislav Brđanin and Mr Aleksandar Brđanin jointly with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage, suffered as a result of domestic procedural delay, as well as the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before this Court, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 undertake 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants' domestic claims shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and are not affected by this declaration.”
On 11 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants' lawyer:
“I note that the Government of Serbia are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 5,600 euros to Mr Svetislav Brđanin and Mr Aleksandar Brđanin jointly with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes the final resolution of ... [the applicants'] ... case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants' domestic claims shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and are not affected by this declaration.”
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 public policy 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.
	Sally Dollé	
	Registrar	President