BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ms Mihalyne BACZOVSZKI and Ms MAria BACZOVSZKI v Hungary - 20770/07 [2010] ECHR 1951 (9 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1951.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1951 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
20770/07
by Ms Mihályné BACZOVSZKI and Ms Mária
BACZOVSZKI
against Hungary
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
9
November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub
Popović,
President,
András
Sajó,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 September 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Ms Mihályné Baczovszki and Ms Mária Baczovszki, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1935 and 1937 respectively and live in Tótkomlós. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length and alleged unfairness of civil proceedings to which they were parties. On 9 June 2010 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the length complaint to the Government.
By letter dated 3 September 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government note that the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful.
In this situation the Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement of the unreasonable length of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay jointly 3,200 (three thousand two hundred) euros to the applicants (Ms Mihályné Baczovszki and Ms Mária Baczovszki).
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added taxes paid on lawyers’ fees), will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further 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 Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as «any other reason» justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
In a letter of 24 September 2010 the applicants expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
THE LAW
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The
Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought
against Hungary, its practice concerning complaints about the
violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time
(see, for example, Váraljai v. Hungary, no. 31172/07, §
8, 15 June 2010; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96,
§ 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Majewski v. Poland,
no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka
v. Poland, no. 56026/00,
10 May 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
