CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 novembre 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC135DF5 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDB3D064B { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF60DF637 { width:301.21pt; display:inline-block } .sB5AC1BCC { width:268.52pt; display:inline-block } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 59565/00 by Lajosné NAGY against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4   November 2003 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 regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Lajosné Nagy, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest. The respondent Government are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Deputy State-Secretary, Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1990 the applicant signed two contracts with a State high school. One regulated her full-time job as a porter on weekdays and the other concerned round-the-clock inspections during the night and on weekends. In order to be able to carry out the latter duties, she was offered a service flat on the premises of the school. In 1991 the applicant applied to the workplace arbitration board claiming remuneration for the inspection work done and for extra hours worked on weekdays. The board held a hearing but failed to reach a decision within the period prescribed by law. Due to the change in legislation, such boards were abolished.   Labour law proceedings   On 3 August 1992 the applicant brought an action against her employer before the Budapest Labour Court contesting the findings in the board’s minutes and claiming compensation for inspections made in her free-time. On 15 May 1995 she requested the Labour Court to hold a hearing, reasoning that nothing had happened in the case for some 2 years and 6 months. On 3 October and 28 November 1995 hearings were held. On 30 January 1996 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The court held that the remuneration claimed for the inspection work she had carried out was part of the contract concerning the provision to her of a service flat. The applicant’s claim therefore fell within the competence of a civil court. In appeal proceedings, on 16 December 1996 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case, finding that a more thorough examination of the case was required. In a judgment of 18 March 1998 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the remuneration requested for the inspection work fell within the competence of a civil court. On 23   April   1998 she appealed against this decision. On 23 June 1999 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first instance decision.   Further proceedings   Following the judgment of 18 March 1998 of the Budapest Labour Court, on 19 March 1998 the applicant brought an action before the XX, XXI and XXIII District Court, claiming remuneration for the inspection work carried out in the framework of the service flat contract. On 16 June 1998 the District Court held a hearing and suspended the case pending the decision in the labour dispute. On 29 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to hold a hearing, referring to the final decision in the labour dispute taken a week earlier. On 29 June 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that her claims were not justified. In a judgment of 18 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The review proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court. THE LAW On 26 September 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me the sum of EUR   5,500 (five thousand five hundred 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. 59565/00   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.” On 26 September 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Hungarian Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 5,500 (five thousand five hundred 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 Mrs Lajosné Nagy, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 59565/00. 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 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 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.” 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 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. Dollé   J.-P. Costa Registrar   President