THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31849/03
by Aleksejs RADIŅŠ
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 September 2003,
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 Aleksejs Radiņš, a Latvian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Rīga. He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Kvjatkovska, a lawyer practising in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant in particular complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the Aizkraukle short-term detention unit.
 On  16 November 2009 and 20 January 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Latvia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application and against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 5 000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This sum will be converted into Latvian lati 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 undertake 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.
	Santiago Quesada	 Josep Casadevall
	Registrar	President