SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25513/07
by Ayla AYDIN and Ayşe Gizem AYDIN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and Stanley NaismithRegistrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 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 Ms Ayla Aydın and Ms Ayşe Gizem Aydın, Turkish nationals, who were born in 1970 and 1972 respectively and live in İstanbul. They were represented before the Court by Ms G. Sipahioğlu, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 27 August 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicants' complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings which began on 13 December 1996 and ended on 31 October 2006 and the lack of remedy in this respect.
 On  22 April 2010 and 11 June 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants 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 them EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) 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.

Stanley Naismith	Françoise Tulkens		President