CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 octobre 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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75748449 { width:49.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B1E4AB6 { width:261.17pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION   DECISION   Application no. 44866/98 by Raymond and Sheila ARNOTT against the United Kingdom     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 October 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze , judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 July 1998 and registered on 8 December 1998,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicants’ letters of 5 and 14 September 2000,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicants are British nationals, born in 1937 and 1938 respectively and living in Wakefield. They are represented before the Court by Mr   Bell, a lawyer practising in Leeds.     The applicants (husband and wife) were the subject of surveillance in error by a detective agency hired by an insurance company on about 25 occasions over three years. The insurance company were attempting to prove fraud by a plaintiff (unconnected to the applicants) in ongoing proceedings but the detective agency erroneously kept under surveillance the applicants and not the relevant plaintiff and his wife.   COMPLAINT     The applicants originally complained under Article 8 of the Convention that they had no domestic remedy in relation to the surveillance carried out on them between 1995 and 1998.   THE LAW     The case was communicated to the Government in February 2000 and, by letter dated 19 May 2000, their observations on the case were received.     By letter dated 5 September 2000, the applicants’ representatives notified the Court that the applicants did not intend to pursue their application as they had settled the case with the Government. The applicants’ representative later confirmed that the case had been settled on the payment of a total sum of £1000 in full and final settlement of all monetary claims of the applicants (including their legal costs).     The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).   Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES .             S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President