CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; 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 } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .sACF3BD4F { width:199.63pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 4428/12 Njabulo NCUBE against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   December 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Paul Mahoney, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 January 2012, Having regard to the correspondence between the parties dated 9   September 2012 and 12 October 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Njabulo Ncube, is a Zimbabwean national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Leicester. He is represented before the Court by Paragon Law, a law firm practising in Nottingham. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Neenan of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his removal to Zimbabwe would be a disproportionate interference with his right to private life in the United Kingdom. On 11 May 2012, the Acting President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1) and to grant priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) By letter dated 9 August 2012, the Government informed the Court that they would be prepared to reach a friendly settlement of the application on the basis that the United Kingdom Border Agency would grant the applicant leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a period of thirty months. By letter dated 9 September 2012, the applicant confirmed that he would accept the Government’s proposal but considered it appropriate for the Government to pay his costs of GBP 500 (five hundred pounds sterling). By letter dated 12 October 2012, the Government confirmed that they accepted the offer made on behalf of the applicant. They confirmed that the application was settled: “on the basis that the United Kingdom Border Agency will grant Mr Ncube leave outside the rules to remain in the United Kingdom for a period of thirty months and the payment of £500 in full and final settlement of the applicant’s claim against the Government before the Court.” THE LAW The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the matter has been resolved and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä   Deputy Registrar   President