European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20987/05
by János FEHÉRVÁRI
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 31 May 2005,

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 applicant, Mr János Fehérvári, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Komárom. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, 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.

On 21 May 1996 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, the Hungarian State Railways Private Company, before the Budapest Labour Court, asking the court to establish the invalidity of the termination of his employment.

On 11 May 2001 this court delivered a partial decision, establishing that the termination of the applicant’s employment had been illegal. Moreover, it held that the defendant was liable for damages.

On 29 November 2002 the Budapest Regional Court modified the first-instance partial decision.

On 15 April 2004 the Budapest Labour Court found for the applicant.

On 18 May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court modified the first-instance decision by raising the amount of compensation due to the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.

THE LAW

The Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 6,400 euros to Mr János Fehérvári 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 6,400 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 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 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