[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mr and Mrs Jozsef OLAH and Mr Akos OLAH v the Hungary - 26844/05 [2009] ECHR 1307 (25 August 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1307.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1307

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 26844/05
by Mr and Mrs József OLÁH and Mr Ákos OLÁH
against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
25 August 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 14 July 2005,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr and Mrs József Oláh and Mr Ákos Oláh, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1948, 1950 and 1974, respectively, and live in Érd. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Róth, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.

Invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained to the Court about the length of civil proceedings involving a property dispute to which they were a party. These proceedings had lasted nine years before one administrative and three court levels of jurisdiction.

THE LAW

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

“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 6,400 euros jointly to
Mr József Oláh, Ms Józsefné Oláh and Mr Ákos Oláh 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 applicants:

“We note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay us jointly the sum of 6,400 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.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President