CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56544/00 by Albert HALMÁGYI against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18   March 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges ,   and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 1999, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Albert Halmágyi, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1927 and lives in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1992 the applicant contracted to sell his house. In the context of a subsequent dispute concerning the actual value of the property and the payment of the purchase price, the buyer brought an action on 7 July 1993 before the Pest Central District Court. She sought annulment of the contract and compensation from the applicant for certain allegedly undisclosed defects in the house. On 28 March 1996 the Pest Central District Court dismissed, in a partial decision, the plaintiff’s claim for the annulment of the contract. On 7   February 1997 the Budapest Regional Court, in an interim judgment, admitted the plaintiff’s appeal. At the hearing of 9 December 1999 the Pest Central District Court heard the evidence of an expert. A further hearing took place on 16 December 1999. On 13 January 2000 the District Court delivered a judgment in which it ordered the applicant to pay the plaintiff 119,723 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest. The District Court dismissed the applicant’s counter-action concerning non-payment of the purchase price by the buyer. On 20 September 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. At present, the applicant’s petition for review is pending before the Supreme Court. THE LAW On 28 October 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Hungarian Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 5,040 (five thousand and forty euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank, to Mr   Albert Halmágyi with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 56544/00. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to the 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 equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank 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 19 December 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay the sum of EUR 5,040 (five thousand and forty euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank, covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs, plus interest if payment is delayed, with a view to securing an agreement concerning application no. 56544/00   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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application 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. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President