CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 71308/10 Aleisha WACEY-GERMAINE against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Nicolas Bratza,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2010, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Aleisha Wacey-Germaine, is a British national who was born in 1986 and lives in Luton. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Gill, a lawyer practising in Watford. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Sornarajah, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention that a possession order was made in respect of the property where she resided without the proportionality of the eviction being considered by an independent court. She also complained under Article 13 that she was unable to defend the possession proceedings on the ground that her personal circumstances made the granting of a possession order disproportionate and that as a result she did not have access to an effective remedy in respect of her Convention complaints. Finally under Article 14, she alleged that she was discriminated against as a non-secure tenant and homeless person. On 16 August 2011 and 8 November 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the United Kingdom in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her five thousand euros (EUR 5,000) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Pounds Sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment, would be free of any taxes that might be applicable and payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from 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 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President