CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150 March 2012 Cēsnieks v. Latvia (dec.) - 9278/06 Decision 6.3.2012 [Section III] Article 37 Article 37-1 Striking out applications Applicant’s express agreement to terms of Government’s unilateral declaration considered friendly settlement: partial strike-out   Facts – In his application to the European Court the applicant, who had been arrested in connection with a homicide, complained that he had been subject to ill-treatment in police custody and that there had been no effective investigation into his accusations against the police. He relied on Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention. He also complained under Article   6 that he had been denied a fair trial in respect of the homicide. Law – Article 37 § 1: The Government had informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with regard to the applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 and   13. They acknowledged a breach of those provisions and offered to pay the applicant EUR 10,000 in compensation. The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. Given his express agreement, the Court considered that there had been a friendly settlement between the parties in respect of this part of the application. The examination of the Article   6 complaint was adjourned. Conclusion : partly struck-out (unanimously). (See also Moroz v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   42009/07, 6   March 2012)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes