SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 31599/06
by Mária BAJOMINÉ SOÓS and Andrea FORGÁCSNÉ VINCZE
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
11 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Mária Bajominé Soós and Andrea Vincze Forgácsné, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1953 and 1979, respectively, and live in Tatabánya. They were represented before the Court by Ms I. Keresztes, a lawyer practising in Tatabánya. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Hötzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 April 1995 S.V., the husband of the first and father of the second applicant, died in the National Korányi TBC Pulmonology Institute.
On 15 December 1995 the applicants brought an action in compensation against the hospital before the Tatabánya District Court. They claimed that Mr S.V. had fallen victim to medical malpractice. The proceedings ended nine years later on 20 December 2004, after the parties had reached a friendly settlement. They had been dealt with at two levels of jurisdiction.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 6,000 euros to Ms Andrea Forgácsné Vincze and to Ms Andrea Forgácsné Vincze each, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be 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 undertake 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 Court also received the following declaration signed by each of the applicants:
“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 6,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy