CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 mars 2008

.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 } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sD73EB0F { width:14.21pt; display:inline-block } .s924548EB { width:198.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 17514/05 by Miklós ANTYIPENKÓ against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Antonella Mularoni,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges,   Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2005, 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Miklós Antyipenkó, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Budapest. 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 12 April 1994 the applicant signed a contract to purchase some real estate. The parties agreed on the price – 7   million Hungarian forints (HUF) plus certain pieces of furniture, to be given in the future to the sellers. After moving in, the applicant found defects in the property. Refusing to pay the cost of the repairs, he brought an action in compensation against the sellers before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court on 30 March 1995. The District Court found for him in part on 21 April 2004. Being dissatisfied with the award, the applicant appealed. On 12   January   2005 the Budapest Regional Court raised the amount of compensation but ordered the applicant to give the defendant the aforementioned furniture or HUF   500,000 instead. The courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of a real estate expert and the testimony of witnesses and the parties. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time. Moreover, he complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In this connection, he also relied on Article 13 without substantiating or developing further this complaint. THE LAW The Court received the following declaration from the Government’s Agent: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 6,400 euros to Mr   Miklós Antyipenkó 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 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 the 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 .” 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 6,400 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 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Sally Dollé   Françoise Tulkens   Registrar   President