European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3971/05
by Gyula FÓRIÁN
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 7 December 2004,

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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gyula Fórián, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Fonyód. He was represented before the Court by Mr Cs. Mester, a lawyer practising 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 September 1998 the applicant requested the dissolution of his marriage before the Fonyód District Court and the division of the matrimonial property.

In July 2003 the District Court obtained the opinion of a real-estate expert to establish the market value of the family home. In September 2003 the opinion of another real-estate expert was obtained in order to clarify certain disputed statements in the first one.

The District Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage in a partial decision, but the proceedings continued concerning the matrimonial property. The court delivered its decision concerning the latter issue on 5 March 2004. None of the parties appealed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Moreover, he complained about the outcome of the proceedings and that the court dealing with the case had not been impartial.

THE LAW

On 26 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 4,000 euros to Mr Gyula Fórián 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.”

On 29 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 4,000 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 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