SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5848/06
by Endre NAGY
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 
22 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

and Françoise Elens-Passos, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Endre Nagy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Ágasegyháza. The respondent Government are 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.
The applicant and another individual signed a sales contract of real estate in May 2001. Since the other party did not pay the first instalment due, the applicant brought an action against him before the Kecskemét District Court in February 2002. In February 2005 the District Court discontinued the case. The Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed this decision and ordered the District Court to resume the proceedings in November 2005.
In July 2006 the District Court found for the applicant. In August 2007 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
In May 2009 the District Court, on the request of both parties, stayed the proceedings.
During the proceedings, the applicant initiated numerous criminal proceedings against the respondent in the case, but to no avail.
COMPLAINTS
Without relying on any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complained about the outcome and the length of the proceedings. Moreover, he complained that his accusations against the respondent did not lead to any conviction.
THE LAW
On 3 August 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred) euros to Mr Endre Nagy 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.”

On 28 August 2009 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 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred) 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.
	Françoise Elens-Passos	Françoise Tulkens
	 Deputy Registrar	President