SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4242/02
by Béla BOROS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 July 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 November 2000,
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 parties’ formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Béla Boros, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Nagydobos, Hungary.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 December 1993 the applicant’s two-month old infant was being carried on board an emergency helicopter, operated by D. Kft, with a view his transfer from the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Hospital to a specialised hospital in Budapest. As a result of poor visibility conditions, the helicopter flew into a high industrial chimney and exploded. All the passengers were killed in the accident.
On 30 September 1994 the applicant and his wife brought an action against D. Kft and the County Hospital claiming 3,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation for the loss of their child.
On 26 April 1996 the Nyíregyháza District Court ordered the first defendant to pay HUF 400,000 plus accrued interest to each of the plaintiffs and dismissed the remainder of their claim.
On appeal, on 12 September 1996 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. It appears that D. Kft’s petition for review was unsuccessful.
On 25 September 1997 the Regional Court ordered D. Kft’s liquidation and appointed a liquidator.
The applicant requested the District Court to proceed with the enforcement of the decision of 12 September 1996. On 7 December 1998 the District Court issued an enforcement order. An attempt by the bailiff on 28 April 1999 to sequestrate D. Kft’s property was unsuccessful.
On 24 July 2001 the District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. The court observed that D. Kft’s liquidation had been ordered publicly on 27 October 1997.
COMPLAINT
The applicant initially complained of the length of the domestic civil proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 10 June 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me the sum of HUF 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand Hungarian forints) [Approximately 6000 euros] covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus interest if payment is delayed, with a view to securing a resolution of application no. 4242/02 pending before the Court.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this payment constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 14 June 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay HUF 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand Hungarian forints) to Mr Béla Boros, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 4242/02. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This sum shall be paid to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable.
Simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application. Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued, and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 to the case;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy