European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ferencne FEKETE v Hungary - 30567/05 [2009] ECHR 1496 (15 September 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1496.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1496
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
30567/05
by Ferencné FEKETE
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Ferencné Fekete, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kecskemét. 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 a real estate dispute, on 8 May 1998 the applicant and other plaintiffs brought an action against the Kecskemét Municipality.
The Kecskemét District Court gave judgment on 25 June 2007. It does not appear from the case file that an appeal was lodged against this decision.
COMPLAINT
Without relying on any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complained of the protraction of the case.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 9,000 euros to Mrs Ferencné Fekete 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 will be 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 9,000 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 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 will be 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). Accordingly, the case should be struck 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