SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4307/07
by Sacit KAYASU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Françoise Tulkens, President,
	Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
	Dragoljub Popović,
	Nona Tsotsoria,
	Işıl Karakaş,
	Kristina Pardalos,
	Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 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 Sacit Kayasu, a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 4 September 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings which began on 12 March 1999 and ended on 23 February 2006.
On 20 October 2009 and 16 April 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 3 300 euros (three thousand three hundred) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be 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 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 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 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 unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Françoise Elens-Passos	Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar	President