SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3939/05
by Miklósné PALOTÁS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 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, Ms Miklósné Palotás, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Szeged. 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.
Following a dispute before a notary public which had started on 16 March 1994, on 1 February 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court challenging the validity of a will. On 8 February 1996 the court found for her. On 4 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision. On 6 July 2000 the Supreme Court quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
In the resumed proceedings a medical expert was appointed. On 24 September 2002 the District Court found for the applicant in a partial decision. On 11 February 2003 the Regional Court upheld this decision in essence. The respondent’s petition for review was to no avail.
Concerning the remainder of the case, on 1 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the respondent’s counterclaims. This decision became binding on 29 July 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness and the length 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 the sum of 8,000 euros to Ms Miklósné Palotás 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 8000 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). 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy