CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 janvier 2002

.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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s9C57A56F { width:204.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 57821/00 by Miquel GODDARD against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   January 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 March 2000 and registered on 31 May 2000, Having regard to the written submissions of the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                     THE FACTS The applicant, Miquel Goddard, is a United Kingdom national, born in 1977. She lives in Hampshire and is represented before the Court by Andrew Bryan, a solicitor practising in Hampshire. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 June 1998 the applicant was engaged as a private in the Royal Logistics Corps of the army. In the summer of 1999 she admitted to her commanding officer that she was homosexual. On 27 September 1999 she received a certificate of discharge from the armed forces. On 20 December 2000 the applicant commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal alleging breach of contract, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and a breach of the Convention. On 2 March 2000 that tribunal dismissed her breach of contract claim (which had, in any event, been withdrawn by the applicant) and found that the remaining two claims had no prospects of success. In addition, it was ordered that her continuing with the proceedings was conditional on her lodging a deposit of 150 pounds sterling (GBP). The applicant did not continue and, on 18 April 2000, her proceedings were struck out. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The domestic law and practice relevant to the present application is described in the judgments of the Court in the cases of Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27 September 1999, unpublished, and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom , nos.   33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 8, both alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, about the investigations conducted into her sexual orientation and her discharge on grounds of her homosexuality in pursuance of the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces. In addition, she complained about the investigation and discharge under Article 3, both alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. She further complained under Article 10, both alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that that policy constituted an unjustifiable limitation on her right to express her sexual freedom. THE LAW By letter dated 7 September 2000 the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. By letter dated 30 October 2001 the applicant’s representatives confirmed her acceptance of the Government’s settlement offer and noted as follows: “We confirm a Friendly Settlement had been agreed between [the applicant] and the United Kingdom in accordance with Rule 62 of the Rules of Court. [The applicant] has accepted the United Kingdom’s offer to pay her GBP 47,500 (forty seven thousand five hundred pounds sterling) in full and final settlement of her claims before the [Court] ... The Chamber is invited to verify the settlement and thereafter strike out the case from the Court’s list in accordance with Rule 44. We invite the Court to treat this letter as [the applicant’s] application for Friendly Settlement.” The Court notes that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(b) of the Convention. It is further satisfied that the parties’ agreement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President