CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA79CBE53 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 53962/19 F.F. against Germany (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   April 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Peeter Roosma,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9   October 2019, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant   anonymity, in accordance with Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of the Court, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, and the applicant’s reply to this declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Heinze, a lawyer practising in Wollerau. The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the refusal by the socio-psychiatric services to delete a memo and its follow-up comment from the applicant’s administrative file were communicated to the German Government (“the Government”). After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. By a letter of 4 February 2022 the Government acknowledged - by way of a unilateral declaration - that the refusal of the socio-psychiatric services of the Hanover region to delete a memo dated 25 June 2002 and its undated follow-up comment, which has a stamp stating “received by 53.10 on 05/08/02”, from the applicant’s administrative file, and the related court decisions of Hanover Administrative Court dated 15 February 2017 and of Lüneburg Administrative Court of Appeal dated 9 May 2019, which failed to weigh up the applicant’s affected rights, constituted a violation of his right to respect for his private life pursuant to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. The Government furthermore gave assurances that the memo dated 25 June 2002 and its undated follow-up have since been deleted from the applicant’s administrative file held by the socio-psychiatric services of the Hanover region. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above ‑ mentioned 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case. The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration. THE LAW The Court finds that, following the applicant’s explicit agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 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 the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 May 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1of the Convention (respect for private life) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 53962/19 09/10/2019 Anonymat F.F. 1950 Arne-Patrik Heinze Wollerau 04/02/2022 08/03/2022 6,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.