CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sAF32EF44 { width:11.28pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sE5F20D9E { width:17.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s619FCD1 { font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 408/13 József PETHŐ and Others against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   June 2013 as a committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Françose Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2012, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr L.Z. Koós, a lawyer practising in Debrecen. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings conducted against them. On 8 and 29 April 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay each of them EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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 LAW 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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.     Françoise Elens-Passos           Peer Lorenzen Acting Deputy Registrar              President       APPENDIX     LIST OF APPLICANTS         József PETHŐ, who was born in 1972 and lives in Fehérgyarmat     Pál ALEXA, who was born in 1972 and lives in Vásárosnamény     Attila BAGI, who was born in 1975 and lives in Gulács     András JAKAB, who was born in 1973 and lives in Fehérgyarmat     Tibor SZIGETVÁRI, who was born in 1976 and lives in Kisar     Tamás TÚRI, who was born in 1971 and lives in Fehérgyarmat