CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mars 2004

.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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sFCBFF887 { width:236.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 60040/00 by Péter VEIZER and György VEIZER against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   March 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2000, Having regard to the decision to communicate the application and to apply the procedure under Article 29 §   3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Péter Veizer and Mr György Veizer, are Hungarian nationals, who were born in 1968 and 1943 respectively, and live in Budapest and Dunavecse, Hungary. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. In 1990 the applicants, both taxi drivers, bought a car from a company. After a month the car broke down because of problems not disclosed by the vendor at the time of purchase. In 1991 the applicants brought an action before the Buda Central District Court against the company, claiming damages. On 17 July 1991 and 10 July 1994 experts submitted their opinions to the District Court. In a judgment on 31 August 1994 the court accepted part of the applicants' claims and dismissed the remainder. Upon appeal, on 11 April 1995 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the latter court. On 7 October 1997 the Buda Central District Court awarded the applicants damages plus interest.    In a judgment of 23 June 1998 the Budapest Regional Court modified the amount awarded. In review proceedings, on 16 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the first and second instance judgments and remitted the case to the District Court. It held that the judgments had failed to comply with sections 319 and 339 of the Civil Code. On 6 July 2001 the Buda Central District Court partly admitted the applicants' claims. On 24 January 2002 the Buda Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. THE LAW On 2 February 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 6,500 (six 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 the applicants, jointly, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 60040/00. 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 applicants, 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 3 February 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants: “We note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay us, jointly, the sum of EUR   6,500 (six 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. 60040/00 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 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 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