SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14352/06
by György SZÉKELY
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
19 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 March 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr György Székely, a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Born, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On 13 October 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of child custody proceedings, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which began in 1999 and ended on 14 October 2005.
On 3 and 8 December 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him
EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. 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 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 would 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 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 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