SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 17736/05 by Lajos MEGYES against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Antonella Mularoni , Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Dragoljub Popović , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 May 2005,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) ,

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Lajos Megyes , is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Tárnok . 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 December 1994 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his employer before the Budapest Labour Court .

After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, the Labour Court partly found for the applicant on 20 October 2004. This decision was served on him on 13 December 2004.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings .

THE LAW

On 28 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“ I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia the sum of 8,000 euros to Mr Lajos Megyes 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 free of a ny 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 16 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 8,000 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 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). 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.

Françoise Elens - Passos Françoise Tulkens Deputy Registrar President