CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9A72FAFE { width:198.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 68613/13 L against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   May   2017 as a Chamber composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Luis López Guerra,   Helen Keller,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 October 2013, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 December 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms L, is a Zimbabwean national, who was born in 1979 and lives in The Hague. The President granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She was represented before the Court by Ms G. Later, a lawyer practising in The Hague. 2.     The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Adhin, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about a full body search to which she had been subjected, and under Article   13 about the way in which her complaint was handled. 4.     The application was communicated to the Government. 5.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 29   December 2016 the Government made a unilateral declaration in the following terms: “The Government notes that the attempt to secure a friendly settlement of the matter has failed. In view hereof, the Government, by means of a unilateral declaration, acknowledges that, in the light of the applicant’s individual circumstances, the full body search that the applicant had to undergo on the 7 th of March 2012 during immigration detention, by two female staff members in [ sic ] the assistance of two male staff members, amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government regrets this course of events and is willing to offer the applicant an amount for just satisfaction of € 3.600 and to reimburse the costs made in relation to both the domestic proceedings and the proceedings before the Court, provided they are specified and reasonable and were necessarily incurred and in line with domestic tariffs as laid down in the Legal Aid Payments Decree ( Besluit Vergoedingen Rechtsbijstand ).” 6.     On 3 February 2017, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that she was prepared to agree to the terms of the Government’s declaration provided that it be “part of a decision of [the] Court or might be known publicly otherwise”. THE LAW 7.     Since the text of the Government’s declaration is set out in the present decision, as is the Court’s usual practice, the Court finds that the condition governing the applicant’s agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government has been met. Consequently, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 8.     It therefore 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. 9.     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 pursuant to Article   39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 24 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President