CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s83C8A12D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sAF759458 { width:174.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11804/09 K. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   November 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr K., is a Netherlands national, who was born in 1991 and lives in Ermelo. The President of the Section has decided not to disclose the applicant’s identity to the public (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr J.J. Weldam, a lawyer practising in Utrecht. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and their Deputy Agent, Ms   L. Egmond, both of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the taking and storing of his cellular material, after he had been convicted of a criminal offence, pursuant to the DNA Testing (Convicted Persons) Act ( Wet DNA-onderzoek bij veroordeelden) . On 8 and 11 October 2012 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to withdraw the application against an undertaking by the Government to delete the applicant’s DNA profile from the DNA database and, on the understanding that any costs for the applicant of the proceedings before the Court are fully covered by the domestic legal aid scheme, to pay him 3,000   euros ex gratia free of any taxes that might be applicable and payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 would 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 no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan   Deputy Registrar   President