European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23532/05
by Natália UJSÁG
against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
16 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 June 2005,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Natália Ujság, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1965 and lives 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.

On 2 December 1996 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court against her ex-companion, asking the court to divide their common property. On 23 January 2004 the District Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant 3,528,579 Hungarian Forints (HUF)¹. The applicant alleges that, despite the fact that she had requested accrued interest as well, the District Court failed to deal with the issue. Both parties appealed.

On 19 January 2005 the Budapest Regional Court partly changed the first-instance decision and reduced the amount payable to HUF 768,079². The courts relied on documentary evidence, and the testimony of witnesses and the parties.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the outcome, the unfairness and the length of the proceedings. In particular, she complained that parts of her action were never examined.

THE LAW

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

“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 5,600 euros to Ms Natália Ujság 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 the applicant:

“I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me the sum of 5,600 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.”

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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President