FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 81196/12
Katalin CZINGULA
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 November 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Ms Katalin Czingula, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest. She was represented before the Court by Mr F. Gerencsér, a lawyer practising in Szentendre.
2. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings was communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
3. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
4. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of criminal proceedings. They offered to pay the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned 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.
5. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
6. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration on 19 December 2016. On 1 February 2017 the Court received a response from her lawyer in which he stated that she did not accept the unilateral declaration.
7. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
8. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI)).
9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, for example, Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013).
10. Noting 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)).
11. In the light of the above considerations, 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertaking referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2017.
Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy