SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application nos. 17624/04 and 16760/05
by Zoltán SARLÓS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 March 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, Mr Zoltán Sarlós, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Réti, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 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.
On 15 January 1993 the applicant, a senior police officer, was dismissed from service as a disciplinary measure. He sought reinstatement and compensation in court.
On 11 October 1993 the Budapest Labour Court cancelled the dismissal in an interim decision and ordered the applicant’s re-employment. This judgment was confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 30 March 1994. On 7 December 1994 the Supreme Court upheld this decision. On 7 February 1995 enforcement proceedings were instituted.
However, on 2 July 1996 the Ministry of the Interior, the applicant’s former employer, brought an action challenging the execution. On 30 October 1997 the Pest Central District Court found for the plaintiff and terminated the execution. On appeal, on 29 September 1998 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. On 20 September 2000 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court. In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 3 July 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision terminating the execution. On 18 June 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. It accepted the plaintiff’s arguments according to which the applicant’s re-employment had been effected on 27 May 1994, in due course, and that his subsequent re-affectation due to structural changes on the employer’s side could not be the subject matter of the dispute on execution.
Concerning the remainder of the applicant’s original action, consisting essentially of compensation claims, on 6 February 1995 the Labour Court partly found for him. On 19 May 1995 the Regional Court quashed this decision. In the resumed proceedings, on 19 December 1997 the Labour Court again found for the applicant in part. On 23 April 1999 the Regional Court changed this decision. On 3 October 2001 the Supreme Court quashed these decisions. In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 30 August 2002 the Labour Court awarded the applicant some compensation. On 23 April 2003 the Regional Court upheld this decision. On 6 October 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the protraction of the proceedings. Moreover, invoking Article 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7, he submitted that the Supreme Court’s decision of 18 June 2003 had been wrong in that it had accepted the termination of the enforcement although the plaintiff had only ‘formally’ complied with the final court decision reinstating him.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the subject matter of application nos. 17624/04 and 16760/05 is identical. It is therefore appropriate to join them, in application of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
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 10,000 euros to Mr Zoltán Sarlós 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 10,000 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 [case]. 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 applications
(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 join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy