FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 66401/09
by K.E.
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:

and Fatoş AracıDeputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by a Finnish national, Mr K.E. The President of the Chamber granted the applicant's request that his identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr Tommi Koivistoinen, a lawyer practising in Tampere. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his criminal proceedings.
 On  6 July and 8 July 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 6,085 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It would 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 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 no 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.
	Fatoş Aracı	
	Deputy 	President