SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30455/04
by Ferenc KOLLÁR
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė, judges
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 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 applicant, Mr Ferenc Kollár, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Győr. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Németh, a lawyer practising in Győr. 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.
On 18 June 1993 an action was introduced against the applicant for the return of a real estate donation made to him.
After several hearings, on 10 February 1995 these proceedings were joined to another case concerning the division of the matrimonial property of the donators.
On 29 February 1996 a first decision was given by the Győr District Court. On 25 February 1997 the Győr-Sopron-Moson County Regional Court quashed this decision.
In the resumed proceedings several hearings took place. On 12 May 1999 a partial decision was adopted.
After holding numerous hearings and obtaining the opinions of experts, on 21 February 2002 the District Court dismissed the action against the applicant.
On appeal, on 14 May 2003 the Regional Court changed this decision and, in a partial and interim judgment, allowed for the recuperation of the donation made to the applicant. On 21 April 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.
In the resumed first instance proceedings, on 21 April 2005 the District Court found against the applicant. On 30 November 2005 the Regional Court upheld this decision.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he complained that the protraction of the dispute made it impossible for him to dispose of his property. Lastly, relying on Article 13, he complained that the protraction of the case infringed his right to an effective remedy.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 9,000 euros to Mr Ferenc Kollár 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 applicant:
“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 9,000 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.
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).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy