FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16725/08
by Miroslav ROHR
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 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 Rohr, a Croatian national who lives in Sv. Nedjelja. He was represented before the Court by Ms V. Pušić Miličević, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings he had instituted before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
 On  27 January 2010 and 19 March 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 3,400 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Croatia kuna 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.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President