SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25375/08
by Miroslav SAVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:

and Françoise Elens-PassosDeputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2008,
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 Miroslav Savić, a Serbian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Novi Pazar. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Popović, a lawyer practising in Novi Pazar. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the excessive length of his civil suit.
 On  7 September 2009 and 9 April 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into domestic currency 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 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		
	Deputy 	President