CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 5762/05 by János KERESZTES against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Rıza Türmen,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges,   Sally Dollé, Section Registrar . Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr János Keresztes, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Hargitai, a lawyer practising 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. In 1994 the applicant signed a mandatory contract with a private individual, P.Sz., concerning the transportation of printing-machines. On 1   February 1995 he brought an action in compensation against P.Sz. before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to oblige him to pay for the damage caused to the machines during their transportation. On 3 April 1998 the Pest Central District Court delivered an interim decision (közbenső ítélet) and declared the respondent liable for the damage. The latter appealed. On 18 May 1999 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, upheld the first-instance decision. On 21 November 2001 the Pest Central District Court awarded the applicant some compensation. On 23 May 2002 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court. In the resumed proceedings, on 27 May 2003 the Pest Central District Court awarded the applicant HUF 1,639,333 (approximately EUR 6,508) plus accrued interest in compensation. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision on 14 September 2004. It was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 8 November 2004. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 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   János Keresztes 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