CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 4 mars 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE32676A6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF87CE425 { width:421.97pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBE9E3732 { width:351.33pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s50E4EEE2 { width:229.34pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sED38DED2 { width:265.32pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7D30AD2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7058A54 { width:0.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5D93783 { width:17.9pt; display:inline-block } .s5CC60A90 { width:219.51pt; display:inline-block } .s3018EE7E { width:45.22pt; display:inline-block } .sAC5E8321 { width:260.83pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC2522 { width:21.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD388262A { width:212.48pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }                       EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS               Application No. 29096/95       Sándorné Németh       against       Hungary       REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 4 March 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS         Page         INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1     PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................................... 3     PART II : SOLUTION REACHED ........................................... 4   INTRODUCTION     1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under former [1] Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mrs   Sándorné   Németh against Hungary on 18 February 1992.   It was registered on 7   November 1995 under file No. 29096/95.   2.     The Government of Hungary were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Höltzl of the Ministry of Justice.   3.     On 2 July 1998 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application partially admissible insofar as it concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of the civil court proceedings in question. It then proceeded to carry out its task under former Article 28 § 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:     "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:   a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;   b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."   4.     Pursuant to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention on 1   November   1998, the application was transferred to the Commission sitting in Plenary.   5.     The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 4 March 1999 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with former Article 28 § 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   6.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:       MM   S. TRECHSEL, President       E. BUSUTTIL       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS     Mrs   G.H. THUNE     Mr   F. MARTINEZ     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   J.-C. GEUS       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI       I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIĆ       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV             PART I     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     7.     The applicant is a Hungarian citizen, born in 1931 and resident in Bokod, Hungary.   8.     In 1987 the applicant brought an action before the Tatabánya Labour Court (Tatabányai Munkaügyi Bíróság) against her former employer claiming some outstanding fees and wages as well as compensation in the context of her dismissal in 1982. In 1990 the Győr Labour Court (Győri Munkaügyi Bíróság) dismissed the action as a whole. Upon the applicant’s partially successful appeal, her compensation claims were transferred to the Tatabánya District Court (Tatabányai Városi Bíróság). Parts of these claims were eventually dismissed by the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court (Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság) in October 1992. The remainder of the action, concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damages, was referred back to the Tatabánya Labour Court in November 1993.     In September 1994 the Labour Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the claims constituted res iudicata . Upon the applicant’s successful appeal, in January 1995 the Győr Labour Court was appointed to examine her compensation claims and to conclude the proceedings. In November 1995 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant's claims, as confirmed by the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court (Győr-Moson-Sopron Megyei Bíróság) on 4   June 1996. The applicant’s petition for review, brought before the Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság), was withdrawn on 27 November 1996.   9.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the above civil court proceedings lasted unreasonably long.     PART II     SOLUTION REACHED     10.     Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with former Article 28 § 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   11.     In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   12.     By letters of 22 August and 7 September 1998, respectively, the applicant and the respondent Government indicated their willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement.   13.     On 29 October 1998 the Secretary, acting on the Commission’s instructions, indicated to the parties that the Commission, having regard to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights under former Article 50 of the Convention in comparable cases and the particular circumstances of the present case, considered that a friendly settlement could be reached on the basis of a payment to the applicant of a sum of money amounting to a total of 720,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) with regard to the applicant’s non-pecuniary damage.   14.     The Government notified the Commission, by letter dated 12 November 1998, that they were prepared to pay the applicant HUF 720,000 in full and final settlement of the matter.   On 15 November 1998 the applicant informed the Commission that she accepted the Government's offer.   15.     The agreement, as approved by the parties, is as follows:   <Translation>     "Statement of the parties with a view to a friendly settlement     With reference to Article 28 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights and to the assistance of the European Commission of Human Rights, the parties in the proceedings concerning Application No. 29096/95, lodged by Mrs Sándorné Németh, declare as follows:     1.   The Government of Hungary will pay 720,000 Hungarian forints to the applicant as compensation in respect of any possible claims relating to the present application. The Government will transfer this sum directly to the applicant’s bank account no. [...] at OTP Bank Rt, Oroszlány.     2.   The applicant declares her application settled.     3.   The applicant waives any further claims against the Government of Hungary relating to the present application."     <Hungarian>     "A felek nyilatkozata a kérelem békés rendezését illetően     "A Németh Sándorné által benyújtott, 29096/95 számú kérelemmel kapcsolatban a Felek, hivatkozással az Európai Emberi Jogi Egyezmény 28. Cikk (1) bekezdésére, valamint az Európai Emberi Jogi Bizottság közreműködésére, kijelentik:     1.   A Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya, a jelen kérelemből eredő valamennyi követelés vonatkozásában nyújtandó kárpótlás gyanánt, megfizet a kérelmező részére 720   000   Ft-ot. A fenti összeget a Kormány közvetlenül a kérelmező [...] számú, az OTP Bank Rt. oroszlányi fiókjában vezetett bankszámlájára utalja át.     2.   A kérelmező kijelenti, hogy ezzel a fenti számú kérelemmel kapcsolatos ügyet rendezettnek tekinti.     3.   A kérelmező a jelen üggyel kapcsolatos, a Magyar Köztársaság Kormányával szembeni valamennyi további követelését elejti."     16.     At its session on 4 March 1999, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to former Article 28 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   17.     For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.             M.-T. SCHOEPFER   S. TRECHSEL   Secretary   President   to the Commission   of the Commission     [1] The term “former” refers to the text of the Convention before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1   November 1998.