CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 31 mai 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .s56A4E0DC { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B64E62F { width:203.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 42241/98 by Bente SØNDERGAARD against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31   May 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   A. Kovler , judges , and   Mr E. F ribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 June 1998 and registered on 17   July   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 deliberated, decides as follows:   FACTS AND COMPLAINTS The applicant, Bente Søndergaard, is a Danish national, born in 1937 and living in Billum, Denmark. In her application, the applicant complained that the length of two sets of civil proceedings, initiated by her against the Århus School of Dentistry ( Århus Tandlægeskole ) and against an insurance company ( Tryg ‑ Baltica   Forsikring ) respectively, were in breach of the “reasonable   time” requirement of Article   6   §   1   of   the   Convention. Moreover, she complained under the same provision of the fairness of both sets of proceedings. PROCEDURE On 9   November   2000 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   complaints concerning the length of the proceedings.   By letter of 6   March   2001 the Government submitted, inter alia, as follows: ”... the Government of Denmark is interested in settling the application by means of a friendly settlement. Taking into account the case law of the Court concerning the application of Article 41 of the Convention and having regard to the specific circumstances of the application the Government of Denmark proposes to pay the applicant 100,000 DKK. The amount is intended to compensate the applicant for any non-pecuniary damage she may have suffered as a result of the proceedings in the current dispute between the applicant and the Århus School of Dentistry and in the dispute between the applicant and the insurance company ...”   On 18   April   2001 the applicant submitted the following declaration: “I note that the Government of Denmark are prepared to pay me a sum totalling 100,000 Danish kroner (DKK), covering damage and costs with a view to a settlement of application no. 42241/98 pending before the Court. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims in respect of Denmark relating to the facts of this application. Consequently, I withdraw my application before the Court, on the condition that the Government pay me the above sum.”       THE LAW The Court takes note of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties (Article   37   §   1   (a) and (b) of the Convention). The Court considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President