SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57977/00
by István MIHÁLY
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 April 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr István Mihály, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1922 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr Cs. Kis, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The respondent Government are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Deputy State-Secretary, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 August 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court. He maintained that a sports association, operating on a neighbouring shooting ground, should be ordered to pay him compensation on account of the nuisance caused by the sound of shots being fired.
Simultaneously, various administrative proceedings were in progress concerning the association’s licence to operate the shooting ground and the tolerable thresholds of sound emission.
At the hearing on 8 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an injunction to put an end to the association’s activity. On 2 February 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal.
On 22 September 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It relied essentially on the opinions of several experts.
On the applicant’s appeal, on 1 June 2001 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case. It held that the first-instance decision was deficient and unsubstantiated.
The proceedings were resumed and the action is still pending at first instance.
THE LAW
On 2 April 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me the sum of EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank at the date of settlement, covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus interest if payment is delayed, with a view to securing a resolution of application no. 57977/00 pending before the Court.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this payment constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 10 April 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Hungarian Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank at the date of settlement, to Mr István Mihály with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 57977/00. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to the Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This sum shall be paid to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable.
Simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy