FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54600/11
Karoly SZITTNER
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2011,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Karoly Szittner, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the levying of tax at a rate of 98% on part of his severance payment had amounted to a deprivation of property which was unjustified.
On 3 and 30 November 2015 and the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 16,200 (sixteen thousand two hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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.
THE LAW
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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2016.
Fatoş AracıNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy