CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 juillet 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. 33877/06 by György NACSA and Others against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 2006, Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention), 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 applicants, Mr and Mrs György Nacsa, and Mr and Mrs József Miskolczi, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1944, 1953, 1920 and 1922, respectively, and live 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 the context of a dispute concerning the construction of a building next to the one in which their flats were situated, in December 1997 the applicants brought an action in compensation against the real estate promotion company in charge of the impugned construction. On 20 November 2001 the Buda II/III District Court dismissed their action, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts. On 31 May 2002 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of another expert. On 7 September 2005 it awarded the applicants some compensation and dismissed the remainder of their action. It relied on documentary evidence, the opinions of the experts and the testimonies of some witnesses. On 13 January 2006 the Regional Court reversed this decision and dismissed the applicants’ action in its entirety. It essentially held that the applicants had not proved that they had suffered any actual damage, the burden of such proof being on them. This decision was served on the applicants on 20 February 2006. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome and the length of the proceedings. THE LAW The Court received the following declaration from the Government’s Agent: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 5,400 euros to Mr György Nacsa and Mrs György Nacsa, jointly, and 5,400 euros to Mr József Miskolczi and Mrs József Miskolczi, jointly, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums, which are 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. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 cases.” The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants: “We note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay the sum of 5,400 euros to Mr György Nacsa and Mrs György Nacsa, jointly, and 5,400 euros to Mr József Miskolczi and Mrs József Miskolczi, jointly, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums, which are 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. They 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. We 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 of the Convention 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