SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45395/05
by István SZABÓ
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 
30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr István Szabó, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Várpalota. 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 March 1998 the applicant brought an action against two private individuals before the Veszprém District Court, asking the court to order the defendants to vacate his flat. In March 2000 the District Court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed. In September 2004 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court.
In the resumed proceedings, the District Court – since the applicant was not present at the hearing and did not notify the court about his absence – suspended its examination of the case on 4 January 2005. It informed the applicant that the suit would terminate in six months unless he requested its continuation. The applicant received this notification on 12 January 2005. Since the applicant failed to submit such a demand, the proceedings ended on 4 July 2005, without a decision on the merits.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about outcome, the unfairness and the length of the proceedings.
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 Mr István Szabó 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 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