CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 mai 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 } .sBC7C755D { width:14.25pt; 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. 30162/05 by Valéria SZOMBATINÉ NAGY against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Antonella Mularoni,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 August 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Valéria Szombatiné Nagy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Miskolc. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. Rózsa, a lawyer practising in Miskolc. 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 the context of a 1991 road accident, in 1998 the State was ordered to pay the applicant a certain amount of compensation. She was also awarded a monthly allowance. On 5 April 1998 she brought an action, claiming further compensation and an increase of the allowance. On 1 December 1999 the Pest Central District Court dismissed her action. However, on 5 September 2000 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. It partly found for the applicant on 29   May 2003. On appeal, on 22 April 2004 the Regional Court quashed this decision and again remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held two hearings and, on 4 July 2005, accepted, in a partial decision, some of the applicant’s claims. Concerning the remainder of the action, on 19 January 2006 a medical expert presented his opinion. After having held three hearings, on 13   November 2006 the District Court found in part for the applicant. She appealed. On 4 March 2008 the Budapest Regional Court adopted a final decision. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW The Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 6,000 euros to Ms Valéria Szombatiné Nagy 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.” 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 6,000 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). 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