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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7BF4101 { width:166.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 49801/08 Torsten LÖNN against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   December 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 October 2008, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Torsten Lönn, is a Swedish national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Bankeryd. He was represented before the Court by Mr     B.     Tengberg, a lawyer practising in Jönköping. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   H.   Kristiansson, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The applicant, the father of a child, complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular, that he had suffered gender-based discrimination as a result of the provisions of the 1947 Child Allowances Act, which stipulated that a child allowance must be paid in full to the mother in the case of separated parents with joint custody, unless the mother consented to a different distribution. On 29 June 2012 the Court received the following declaration from the Government, signed by the applicant’s representative on 27 June 2012 and the Agent of the Government on 28 June 2012: “The Government and the applicant have now reached the following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for human rights, as defined in the [Convention], in order to terminate the proceedings before the Court. a)     The Government will pay, ex gratia , to the applicant the sum of EUR   8,000 (eight thousand), to be converted into Swedish kronor at the rate applicable on the date of payment. ... Execution of payment will take place when the Government has received the Court’s decision striking the case out of its list of cases. b)     The applicant declares that he has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the facts of the [present] application. This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the Government at a Cabinet meeting.” By a decision of 20 September 2012, the Government approved the settlement reached. 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.   Stephen Phillips   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Deputy Registrar   President