SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9287/07
Mátyás BORLÓI
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 February 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mátyás Borlói, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party.
On 26 November and 2 December 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 4,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be 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. 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 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 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. 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.
Stanley Naismith Helen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy