CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA31CEDC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDAD452F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s19B7B205 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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           CASE OF HEGEDŰS v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 43649/98)                     JUDGMENT (friendly settlement)     STRASBOURG   25 March 2003             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision In the case of Hegedűs v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni , judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2002 and on 4 March 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   43649/98) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Sándor Hegedűs (“the applicants”), on 30 July 1998. 2.     The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Höltzl, Deputy State-Secretary, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants complained, inter alia , under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings concerning an action in trespass. 4.     The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 6.     On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1). 7.     On 12 March 2002 the Court, having obtained the parties' observations, declared the application admissible in so far as it had been communicated to the Government. The applicants' further complaints were declared inadmissible. 8.     On 11 October 2002, after an exchange of correspondence, the Registrar suggested to the parties that they should attempt to reach a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention. 9.     On 6 and 7 November 2002 the applicants and the Government respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. THE FACTS 10.     The applicants were born in 1936 and 1937, respectively, and live in Tata, Hungary. 11.     In May 1987 the Tatabánya District Court granted a request by Mrs.   O., the applicants' neighbour, that they be ordered to tolerate a sewer, which emanated from her property, crossing part of their garden. 12.     In 1988 the applicants brought an action in trespass against Mrs.   O., claiming that, when installing the sewer, she exceeded the scope of the rights granted to her in 1987. 13.     In July 1990 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the District Court's dismissal of the action and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings, in February 1991 the District Court again dismissed the applicants' action. In October 1991 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a second time. 14.     In the resumed proceedings, on 2 February 1993 the District Court held a hearing and appointed a technical expert. On 9 May 1995 an inspection of the premises was carried out. On 9   November 1995 a further expert was appointed but replaced, on the applicants' complaint, on 22   January 1996. In April 1996 the expert sent the documentation back to the District Court indicating that the applicants had prevented him from inspecting the premises. On 14 November 1996 the District Court appointed the Forensic Technical Expert Institute to give an opinion in the case, which it did on 26 March 1997. A final report was submitted on 23   September   1997. 15.     On 13 November 1997 the District Court accepted the applicants' claims, finding that the defendant's installation of the sewer had constituted a trespass and ordered her to remove it. It dismissed the defendant's counter-action brought with a view to establishing rights of servitude. 16.     On 15 May 1998 the Regional Court dismissed the defendant's appeal. 17.     On 17 June 1998 the defendant brought a petition for review before the Supreme Court. On 28 September 1998 the applicants submitted their counter-arguments. 18.     On 19   November 1998 the District Court ordered the competent agent to proceed with the enforcement of its decision. This took place on 4   December 1998. 19.     On 10 March 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the defendant's counter-action on the servitude claim, but quashed the remainder of the first and second instance judgments and dismissed the applicants' action. It held that the extent to which the defendant had exceeded the rights granted to her in 1987 did not warrant the removal of the sewer. In so far as the applicants had disputed her right to install the sewer across their land, the Supreme Court qualified their claims as res judicata . The judgment was served on the applicants on 4   June   1999. THE LAW 20.     On 6 November 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants: “We note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay to us jointly the sum of EUR 6,720 (six thousand seven hundred and twenty 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 a settlement of application no. 43649/98 pending before the Court. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case and we have no intention of subsequently requesting a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.” 21.     On 7 November 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 6,720 (six thousand seven hundred and twenty euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank, to Mr and Mrs   Sándor Hegedűs, jointly, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 43649/98. 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 applicants, 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 Government declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” 22.     The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 23.     Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Decides to strike the case out of the list;   2.     Takes note of the parties' undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 March 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President