CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 septembre 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 } .s635176F2 { width:141.94pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 22232/05 by László SÁRKÁNY against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2005, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The case is originated in an application (no. 22232/05) lodged with the Court against Hungary by Mr László Sárkány on 6 June 2005. He died on 24 June 2008. His widow, Mrs László Sárkány expressed her intention to pursue the application on 21 July 2008. However, for practical reasons, Mr Sárkány will continue to be called “the applicant” in this decision, although Mrs Sárkány, his heir, is now to be regarded as such (see the Ahmet Sadık v. Greece judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, §   3). Mrs Sárkány is a Hungarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Balassagyarmat. She was represented before the Court by Mr Gy. J. Nagy, a lawyer practising in Tatabánya. 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. The applicant worked as a prison guard in Balassagyarmat Prison. In June 1991 the applicant suffered serious injuries during a football game organised by his employer. In January 1993 he suffered another injury while moving a table at work. He requested his employer to classify the events as work accidents and award him allowances accordingly. His claim was refused by the Prison which decision was later upheld by the National Prison Headquarters. On 11 February 1994 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his employer and the National Prison Headquarters before the Budapest Regional Court. He also requested the court to “change” the abovementioned administrative decisions. Between 1994 and 1997 the case was transferred six times – finally to the Pest Central District Court –, since the domestic courts were unable to determine the question of jurisdiction. In June 2004 the District Court partly found for the applicant. The defendants appealed. On 4 April 2004 the Budapest Regional Court changed the first instance decision and terminated the proceedings, after having established that the applicant's action had been incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. COMPLAINTS 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 Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 8,000 euros to Mr   László Sárkány 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 Mrs Sárkány: “I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 8,000 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 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 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