SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60047/00
by Julianna PINTÉRNÉ RÁSÓ and Others
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrK. Jungwiert,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 April 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mrs Julianna Pintérné Rásó (“first applicant”) and Mr Ferenc Pintér (“second applicant”), a married couple, and Mr Ferenc Pintér Jr (“third applicant”), their son, are Hungarian nationals. They were born in 1949, 1953 and 1976 respectively and live in Budapest. They are represented before the Court by Mr E. Petruska, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The third applicant is the owner of a real estate, of which his parents are beneficiaries. In 1990 the first applicant filed an action with the Szentendre District Court in the name of her minor son against their neighbours for the protection of the property, the termination of a trespass and related matters.
In a judgment of 6 December 1991 the District Court partly accepted the first applicant’s action and ordered the defendant to terminate the trespass and to allow the owner to enjoy entry to his property.
Upon appeal, on 26 March 1992 the Pest County Regional Court partly confirmed the judgment of the District Court, but annulled and remitted the first-instance decision as regards the order to allow the owner enjoyment of the property. The court held that the latter matter could be decided only if the owner was a party to the proceedings.
On 7 September 1992 the second and the third applicant brought an action in respect of the same matter before the same District Court, which granted their request to join their case to that of the first applicant.
As in the meantime an on-site inspection had been carried out and a judicial expert had submitted his opinion, the applicants on 2 August 1996 contested the appointment of another expert and requested that the case be given priority. On 10 February 1997 they requested the court to hold a hearing.
In an order of 7 June 1997, the court asked the applicants to state if they wished to continue the proceedings or to reach a friendly settlement with the defendants.
As no settlement could be reached, a hearing was scheduled for 15 January 1998. However, it was adjourned as the defendants’ lawyer could not attend.
In a letter of 13 March 1998 the applicants requested the court not to appoint another expert and to deliver a judgment in the case.
On 31 March 1998 the court suspended the proceedings pending the termination of proceedings before the Land Registry which had been instituted by the defendants in order to have the boundaries of the land examined. On 15 July 1998 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal against this order.
On 17 November 1998 the applicants requested the court to inform them about the progress of the Land Registry proceedings, to examine the necessity of the suspension order and to ensure that priority continued to be given to the case.
By an order of 21 June 2000 the District Court decided to resume the examination of the case as the Land Registry had terminated the proceedings before it. The court ordered the parties to choose from among three options: the termination of the case, the withdrawal of their actions or the suspension of the court proceedings. In the event of failure to choose one of these options, the court would suspend the case.
Subsequently, on 11 July 2000 the applicants withdrew their action, arguing that the unreasonably long proceedings had made it impossible for them to continue the case. On 13 July 2000 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.
THE LAW[Note1]
On 25 September 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 7,000 (seven 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 the applicants jointly, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 60047/00. 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 applicants, 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 during the default period 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.”
On 14 October 2003 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants:
“We note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay us, jointly, the sum of EUR 7,000 (seven 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. 60047/00 pending before the Court.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this payment constitutes a 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 to the case 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.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[Note1]The complaints section has been omitted as it is considered unnecessary if the complaint(s) is/are taken up in a clear manner in “The Law” section of the decision.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy