SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34378/04 by István TÖRÖK and Others against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mrs F. Tulkens , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr R. Türmen , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , Ms D. Jočienė, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2004,

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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr István Török, Ms Mária Malatinszky and Mr Mihály Malatinszky , are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1962 , 1958 and 1959 respectively and live in Szeged . They were represented before the Court by Mr F. Hevesi, a lawyer practising in Szeged . 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 25 May 1993 Mr Török and the predecessor of Ms and Mr Malatinszky acquired some agricultural land – a forest – at a public auction. Their ownership was registered on 5 April 1994. Pursuant to a subsequent request by the former owner, on 9 October 1996 the Szeged District Land Registry divided the estate and restored the latter ’ s ownership in respect of a 6,162-sqm plot which was unfit for cultivation and a house. On appeal, on 7 August 1997 the Csongrád County Regional Land Registry quashed this administrative decision and restored the applicants ’ ownership of the whole land.

Meanwhile, on 16 September 1996 Mr Török and the predecessor of the other two applicants brought an action in trespass against the users of the disputed part of the estate.

After several hearings, on 2 December 1997 the Szeged District Court found for the plaintiffs.

On appeal, on 8 March 2000 the Csongrád County Regional Court quashed this decision.

In the resumed proceedings several hearings took place and the opinion of an expert was obtained. On 29 January 2001 the District Court, in a partial decision, found against the applicants and held, pursuant to the former owner ’ s counter-claim, that the disputed part belonged to the latter. On 26 September 2001 the Regional Court upheld this decision in essence. On 9 February 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants ’ petition for review.

In the continued first instance proceedings, on 14 February 2005 the District Court dismissed the respondent ’ s counter-claim to have the plot of land formally divided. On 20 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed this decision.

In the resumed proceedings, on 20 September 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicants ’ remaining claims and the respondent ’ s counter-claim. On 1 February 2006 the Regional Court changed this decision, holding that a plot of 1,594-sqm of the disputed area belonged to the respondent, but that any use in excess thereof would constitute trespass.

On 28 February 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants ’ petition for review.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. Moreover, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they also complained about the outcome of the case .

THE LAW

On 13 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay ex gratia 6,000 euros to Mr István Török , Ms Mária Malatinszky and Mr Mihály Malatinszky each, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

Th ese sum s , which are 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. They 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 th ese sum s within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them , 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 20 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by each of the applicants:

“ I note that the Government of Hungary are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 6,000 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).

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it sh ould be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. Dollé F. Tulkens Registrar President