SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30815/04
by Ernő KATONA and István TOMASOVICS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 July 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Ernő Katona and Mr István Tomasovics, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1956 and live in Budapest. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Szecskay, 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 a business dispute, in 1987 the applicants brought an action in compensation before the Pest Central District Court, which gave a first decision in 1989. The Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision.
In the resumed proceedings, on 27 November 1996 the District Court partly found for the applicants. On 13 February 1998 the Regional Court reversed this decision and dismissed the action. On 1 July 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case. In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 10 September 1999 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case.
In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 5 June 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ action. On appeal, on 14 April 2004 the Regional Court reversed this decision and partly found for the applicants.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the protraction of 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 Ernő Katona and Mr István Tomasovics, each, 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 and non-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 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 applicants:
“We note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay each of us 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 and non-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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. We 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.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy