FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27669/08
by Jaan ÕMBLUS
against Estonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 October 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jaan Õmblus, is an Estonian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Tartu. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Tamm, a lawyer practising in Tartu. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 and 18 June 2001 two businessmen made offence reports to the police complaining about fraud allegedly committed by the applicant and N.
In July 2001 criminal proceedings concerning aggravated fraud were initiated against the applicant. From 16 to 18 July 2001 he was kept in pre-trial detention.
On 27 October 2005 the Public Prosecutor’s Office drew up a bill of indictment. It also involved further charges against N. and two other defendants which were not related to the charges against the applicant.
On 5 February 2007 the Tartu County Court convicted the applicant as charged. It established that the applicant together with N. had promised to help two businessmen to obtain credit from foreign financial institutions for their companies. The victims and their companies had paid cash to the applicant and N. for transaction fees in advance. However, no loans were obtained. The applicant and N. denied having received any cash payments and asserted that the sums paid by the companies had been payments for business analysis. The court, relying on statements of victims and witnesses and on some written evidence, found that the applicant and N. had committed an aggravated fraud. The applicant was sentenced to one year and six months’ suspended imprisonment.
On 21 September 2007 the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
On 19 December 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings.
2.  He also complained that he had not been given a fair trial and that the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated as the courts had wrongly assessed the evidence and had been prejudicial against him. He had been convicted in spite of the fact that he had committed no unlawful acts. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 7 § 1.
THE LAW
1.  The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
 By letter dated 22 October 2009 the Government informed the Court of the following unilateral declaration, signed on the same date:
“1.  The Government notes that the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful.
2.  In this situation, the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of “reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
3.  Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant the global sum of 950 euros (nine hundred fifty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court’s case law.
4.  This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
...
7.  In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention the Government would like to suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for “any other reason” it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
8.  Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision.
9.  Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
 The applicants did not submit any comment within the time-limit specified by the Registry.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI);
 The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007; Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007; and Missenjov v. Estonia, no. 43276/06, 29 January 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.

2.  The applicant further complained that that he had not been given a fair trial and that the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated as the courts had wrongly assessed the evidence and had been prejudicial against him. He had committed no unlawful acts. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 7 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen 
	Registrar	President