SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44741/04
by Pál BOSNYÁK
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 November 2004,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pál Bosnyák, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Ms É. Nagy, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In August 1993 the applicant’s wife requested the dissolution of their marriage and the division of the matrimonial property before the Székesfehérvár District Court.
After having held several hearings, and having obtained the testimony of witnesses and the opinion of an expert, on 3 March 2000 the District Court, in a partial decision, dissolved the applicant’s marriage.
On 25 September 2000 the District Court ruled on the division of the matrimonial property. The plaintiff appealed.
On 3 May 2001 the Fejér County Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court.
On 1 April 2003 the District Court again ruled on the division of the matrimonial property. The plaintiff appealed.
The Fejér County Regional Court appointed an expert and held hearings on 2 December 2003 and 11 May 2004. On the latter date it changed the first-instance decision and raised the amount to be paid to the applicant’s ex-wife to 32,192,126 HUF (approximately 12,662 Euros). The courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of real-estate experts and the testimony of numerous witnesses and the parties.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. Moreover, he complained that he had had no effective remedy before a national authority to accelerate the proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Government’s Agent:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 8,000 euros to Mr Pál Bosnyák 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 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 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 Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 8,000 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 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy