SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39352/06
by Gábor MÁTÉ and Others
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
9 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 August 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 January 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr Gábor Máté, Mr István Szénási and Mr Tibor Kállai, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1966, 1971 and 1965, and live in Ballószög and Kecskemét, respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr L. Lippai, a lawyer practising in Kecskemét. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings conducted against them.
By letter dated 25 January 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government note that the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful.
In this situation the Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement of the unreasonable length of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred) euros to each of the applicants (Mr Gábor Máté, Mr István Szénási and Mr Tibor Kállai).
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added taxes paid on lawyers’ fees), will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further 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 Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as «any other reason» justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
In a letter of 8 March 2010 the applicants expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
THE LAW
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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 case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Hungary, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many other authorities, Medgyes and Rusz v. Hungary, no. 14308/07, § 9, 8 June 2010; Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
Having regard to the nature of 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)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy