SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31556/06 by Lászlóné ÜRÖGI against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Antonella Mularoni , Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Dragoljub Popović , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2006,

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 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, M r s Lászlóné Ürögi , is a Hungarian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ráckeve. She was represented before the Court by Mr G. Papp, a lawyer practising in Budapest . 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 30 December 1997 the Pest County Police Department informed the applicant that she was a suspect in a fraud case.

On 23 March 2000 the Budapest V/VIII/XIIII District Public Prosecutor ’ s Office preferred a bill of indictment in the case.

After having held numerous hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 8 December 2005 the Pest Central District Court finally acquitted the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the protraction of the proceedings .

THE LAW

T he Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“ I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 8,000 euros to Ms Lászlóné Ürögi 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. 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 received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me 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 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