SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28082/05
by Sándorné RIGÓ
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
16 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Sándorné Rigó, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tata. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Pozsár, a lawyer practising in Tata. 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.
A. First set of criminal proceedings
In August 1996 the applicant was charged with grievous bodily assault and breach of domicile. In April 1999 the Tata District Court, after having held three hearings, found the applicant guilty of breach of domicile. In
May 2000 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
In the resumed proceedings, the District Court again found the applicant guilty of breach of domicile and fined her in May 2003. The Regional Court again quashed the first-instance judgment in January 2004.
In October 2004 the District Court terminated the proceedings and warned the applicant. On appeal, the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of breach of domicile and warned her on 24 January 2005. This judgment was served on the applicant on 7 February 2005.
B. Second set of criminal proceedings
In August 1996 the applicant was charged with grievous bodily assault and other offences. In February 2000 the Tata District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. In November 2000 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
In the resumed proceedings the District Court, after having held six hearings, again found the applicant guilty as charged in November 2004. It fined the applicant to 27,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 90 euros). The District Court appreciated as an important mitigating factor the excessive protraction of the proceedings and stressed that this was the reason for imposing a relatively light sentence. The Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment in June 2005.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 3 May 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 5,600 euros to Mrs Sándorné Rigó 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 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 the 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.”
On 10 May 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me the sum of 5,600 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 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.”
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy