SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 15130/05
by Tibor VELCZENBACH
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
10 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 2005,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tibor Velczenbach, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Veszprém. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by the 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 11 June 1998 the applicant’s wife sought the division of the couple’s matrimonial property. After three hearings, on 24 June 1999 the Budapest Regional Court transferred the case to the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court. This court held its first hearing on 16 June 2000. On 9 October 2001 it pronounced the parties’ divorce in a partial decision and accepted their agreement concerning the placement of the couple’s children.
In the continued proceedings concerning the property – after several hearings, the establishment of an expert’s opinion and a prolonged procedural dispute concerning the applicant’s motion for bias – on 17 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal appointed the Budaörs District Court and the Pest County Regional Court to hear the applicant’s case, respectively as first and second-instance courts.
On 5 April 2006 the District Court divided the matrimonial property in a partial decision.
Both the continued first-instance proceedings and those concerning the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of 5 April 2006 are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and the unfairness of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia the sum of 8,000 euros to Mr Tibor Velczenbach 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 8,000 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 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 special circumstances which require the further examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
F. Elens-PassosF. Tulkens
Deputy Section RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy