FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 58777/12
ZAHE-CONSULT KFT
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Zahe-Consult Kft, is a limited liability company incorporated under Hungarian law, with a registered office in Budapest. It was represented before the Court by Mr Gy. Szekér, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice.
2. The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings to which it was a party.
3. On 11 October 2012 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint.
4. On 3 December 2012 the Government submitted to the Court their declaration accepting the terms of a friendly settlement proposal formulated by the Registry. However, the applicant company refused the proposal on 30 November 2012.
5. On 3 October 2017 the applicant company’s representative informed the Court that, by virtue of a deed of assignment concluded with the company on 27 August 2014, he had acquired the applicant company’s claim against the respondent State. The representative further declared that he intended to accept the Court’s friendly settlement proposal.
6. On 15 November 2017 the applicant company’s representative was invited to inform the Court whether he was still entitled to represent the applicant company and whether the applicant company wished to maintain the application.
7. In response, in a letter dated 30 November 2017, the representative reiterated that his law firm had been subrogated in the applicant company’s rights on the basis of a deed of assignment and that it was the law firm that would accept the friendly settlement proposal. He neither confirmed that he was still entitled to act for the applicant company, nor did he declare that the applicant company wished to maintain the application.
8. At the same time, the representative also submitted a declaration in which he stated, on behalf of the applicant company, that the said company accepted the terms of the friendly settlement proposal.
THE LAW
9. The Court has already held that the right of individual petition vouchsafed by Article 34 of the Convention is not a proprietary right, nor is it transferable as if it were (see Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 57602/09, § 25, 4 October 2011). Whatever the validity in terms of domestic law of a transaction – a deed of assignment in the present case – it would be out of keeping with the nature of the Convention as an instrument protecting basic human rights and the Court itself as its guardian to allow the status of applicant to be transferred at will (ibid.).
10. The applicant company’s representative expressly stated that it is his law firm that would like to take the place of the applicant company in the present case. Moreover, he did not respond to the question whether he was still entitled to represent the applicant company and whether the said company wished to maintain the application.
11. In such circumstances, the Court finds immaterial the content of the declaration cited in paragraph 8 above, given the absence of confirmation from the representative as to his capacity to act for the applicant company and to make such declarations on its behalf, and also given that the declaration is in flat contradiction with what has otherwise been put forward by the representative, notably that it was his law firm, rather than the applicant company, that intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement with the respondent Government.
12. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant company may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention), and that the applicant company’s representative is not entitled to pursue the application in the applicant company’s stead. 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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application.
13. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.
Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy