SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63277/00
by Mihály ZSOMBÓ
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 August 2000,
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 Mihály Zsombó, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Recsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Hetényi, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1988 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court claiming damages from an insurance company for injuries suffered in a car accident.
According to the opinion of a medical expert dated on 16 February 1989, the state of the applicant’s health was not final. Upon the parties’ request the proceedings were suspended.
In September 1991 the proceedings were continued upon the applicant’s modified action against the Hungarian State.
On 16 May 1996 a medical expert submitted an opinion on the status of the applicant’s health.
Subsequently, in a partial judgement the District Court granted 842,195 Hungarian forints (HUF) to the applicant as non-pecuniary damage.
In 1997 the Budapest Regional Court reduced the amount granted by the first-instance court.
On 30 April 2002 the Pest Central District Court partially accepted the rest of the applicant’s claim and granted him 423,360 HUF and interest.
On 18 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Budapest Regional Court. On 14 January 2003 the Regional Court partly modified the first-instance decision and granted the applicant further 138,625 HUF and interest.
THE LAW
On 7 June 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank at the date of settlement, to Mr Mihály Zsombó, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 63277/00. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This sum shall be paid to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable.
Simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On the same date 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 EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank at the date of settlement, covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus interest if payment is delayed, with a view to securing a resolution of application no. 63277/00 pending before the Court.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this payment constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). 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 its Protocols which require the further examination of the application. Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued, and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy