CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 janvier 2005

.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 } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .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 } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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   FINAL DECISION Application no. 66597/01 by Gyula KOCSIS against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   January 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2000; Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together; Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case; Having regard to the partial decision of 4 March 2003; Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Gyula Kocsis, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1914 and lives in Erdőbénye. He was represented before the Court by Mrs Cs. Lakatos, a lawyer practising in Miskolc. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant, charged with murder, was in pre-trial detention from 29   December 1990 until 15 February 1991. On 22 July 1991 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor's Office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 29 January 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking compensation for damages which had arisen on account of his unjustified detention according to section 383 § 1 of the Code on Criminal Procedure. At a later date, the applicant extended his action claiming 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 11 March 1994 the Miskolc District Court awarded the applicant HUF 40,750 as compensation for his detention and transferred his claims for non-pecuniary damage to a civil court. On 5 July 1994 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court, holding that the District Court had not proceeded according to the law. In the resumed proceedings, the Miskolc District Court, on 24 June 1996, dismissed the applicant's action. On 26 September 1996 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the compensation proceedings. THE LAW On 31 August 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to Mr Gyula Kocsis, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 66597/01. 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 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.” On 2 September 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me the sum of EUR   4,000 (four thousand euros) 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. 66597/01 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 further examination of the application. 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