CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 mai 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .sEDBAD313 { margin:0pt 33.1pt 0pt 35.45pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC2250E92 { width:36.56pt; display:inline-block } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   Application no. 51626/99 by Gurli SUNDSTRØM against Denmark     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges , and   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 8 September 1999 and registered on 6 October 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicant is a Danish citizen born in 1962.   She resides in Silkeborg, Denmark. Before the Court she is represented by Mr C. Harlang, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   On 16 April 1986 the applicant underwent a breast operation at the Central Hospital in Silkeborg ( Silkeborg Centralsygehus ).   A tumour, which was then considered to be malignant, was removed.   Afterwards it was established that the tumour was in fact benign.   As a result of the operation the applicant experienced heavy pains, no sense in her fingers and decreased power in her right arm and had to resign from her work as an assistant nurse in October 1986.   On 12 May 1989 the applicant brought an action before the High Court of Western Denmark ( Vestre Landsret ) against the County of Aarhus, to which the hospital belongs, claiming damages for alleged malpractice by the hospital.   She claimed compensation in the amount of 267,244 DKK.   Between August 1989 and January 1991 the case was adjourned in order to obtain an opinion from the Medico-Legal Council.   The opinion was submitted on 8 January 1991. Further questions were answered by the Council on 3 June 1991.   Between December 1991 and March 1994 the case was adjourned in order to obtain an opinion from the National Board of Industrial Injuries ( Arbejdsskadestyrelsen ).   The opinion was submitted on 17 March 1994.   A request from counsel for the defendant to submit further questions to the Medico ‑ Legal Council was dismissed by the High Court in June 1995, but allowed after the oral hearing on 13 December 1995.   The supplementary opinion of the Medico-Legal Council was submitted on 14 March 1996.   In a judgment of 21 June 1996 the High Court found against the applicant.      The applicant appealed against the judgment on 8 July 1996.   In a judgment of 10 May 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment by three votes to two.     COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that she has not had a hearing within a reasonable time.   She invokes Article 6 of the Convention.     PROCEDURE     The application was introduced on 8 September 1999 and registered on 6   October   1999.   On 2 December 1999 the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Denmark and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.     On 31 March 2000 the applicant’s representative submitted the following letter:   “With reference to [the above case] I shall hereby inform [you] that following further negotiations with the government the parties have agreed to settle the case under the condition that the government to the applicant pays DKK   60,000 and legal expenses.   On behalf of my client, Gurli Sundstrøm, I shall therefore with this letter withdraw the complaint.”     On 25 April 2000 the Court received a letter from the Agent of the Danish Government confirming that a settlement had been reached and that compensation and costs had been paid to the applicant on 10 April 2000.     DECISION     The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).   It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require a continuation of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES .             Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President