FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22226/07
by Pandil DUKOSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
:
and Claudia Westerdiek, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2007,
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 Pandil Dukoski, a Macedonian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Ohrid. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Tomoski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
On 7 January 2010 the Court decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of property related proceedings. The proceedings began on 1 November 2000 and ended on 5 April 2007 (the date of service).
On 4 March 2010 and 14 April 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 2,600 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable to the personal account of the applicant 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 nopublic 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
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen
	Registrar	President