CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mars 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC474A5FB { width:236.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 42544/04 by Józsefné PUSENSZKI against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6   March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mrs   F. Tulkens , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 2004; 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Józsefné Pusenszki, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Jánoshalma. She was represented before the Court by Mr I. Kis Ellák, a lawyer practising in Kiskunhalas. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 10 April 1997 the applicant brought an action against her son, claiming repossession of her house inhabited by him and seeking compensation. On 8 December 1998 the Kiskunhalas District Court partly found for the applicant. On 13 June 2000 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court amended this decision. On 20 March 2002 the Supreme Court quashed these decisions. In the resumed proceedings, on 13 February 2004 the District Court partly found for the applicant. On 27 April 2004 the Regional Court amended this decision (service: 26   May 2004). COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 16 January 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 1,300 euros to Ms   Józsefné Pusenszki with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 24 January 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 1,300 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     S. Dollé   F. Tulkens   Registrar   President