SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18743/05 by János DISZTL against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 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 5 April 2005,

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

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr János Disztl, is Hungarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Pécs. He is represented before the Court by Mr Cs. Timár, a lawyer practising in Pécs. 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.

On 4 October 1999 the applicant was heard as a suspect for the misuse of drugs (kábítószerrel való visszaélés) . On the same day he was taken into pre-trial detention. His detention ended on 17 October 2001 when his house arrest was ordered. That measure was terminated on 8 March 2002.

On 7 April 2003 the Pécs District Court, after holding thirteen hearings, found the applicant guilty as charged. The applicant appealed.

On 4 March 2004 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.

In the resumed proceedings, the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged on 7 March 2005. The judgment became final on the same day.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. Moreover, he complained , relying on Article 5 of the Convention, about the protracted nature of his pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

On 30 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 3,200 euros to Mr János Disztl 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 .”

On 14 May 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 3,200 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.

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 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