CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 29 avril 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 } .s635176F2 { width:141.94pt; display:inline-block } .s6FDB9D1F { width:194.97pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 651/05 by György DOBOS against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29   April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Rıza Türmen,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr György Dobos, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Mátrafüred. 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 May 1997 the applicant brought an action against his neighbours before the Gyöngyös District Court. He requested the court to divide their common property – a sewer –, to declare a contract concerning the sewer invalid and order the defendants to pay a fee for the use of the drain. In January 1999 the District Court dismissed his action. On appeal, the Heves County Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action as well as the defendants’ counter-claim on 29 March 1999. On appeal, in July 1999 the Regional Court quashed, in a partial decision, the first-instance decision. In May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court discontinued the procedure in October 2002. On appeal, in January 2003 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and ordered the District Court to resume the proceedings. In October 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequently modified action. It held that the respondent had lawfully used the sewer and contributed to its maintenance, therefore the applicant could not claim any payment in this respect. On appeal, in April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition on 6 January 2005. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. Moreover, he complained about the outcome of the proceedings and that the courts dealing with the case had not been impartial. 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 2,400 euros to Mr   György Dobos 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 2,400 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. Françoise Elens-Passos   Françoise Tulkens    Deputy Registrar   President