by László FARKAS
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
2 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 September 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The application was lodged by Mr László Farkas, a Hungarian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in particular about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party.
On 18 November 2009 and 5 January 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Hungarian forints 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 Convention. 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 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 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