SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 68112/01 by László Levente SÁNDOR against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 March 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr L. Loucaides , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs W. Thomassen , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, judges ,

and Mr T.L. Early , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2001,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr László Levente Sándor, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the chairman of a retailers' co-operative against which liquidation proceedings were instituted in 1994.

On 25 October 1995 the liquidation trustee terminated the applicant's employment as from 1 May 1996. On 3 November 1995 the applicant objected to this measure in an action filed with the Budapest Regional Court.

On 14 March 1996 the court held a hearing and ordered the liquidation trustee to reinstate the applicant in his position.

On the liquidation trustee's appeal, the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance order on 4 July 1996 and remitted the case to the Regional Court.

On 28 July 1999 the Regional Court accepted in part the applicant's objection and granted him his salary for the period of notice, plus interest.

On 25 June 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, partly amended the first-instance decision and granted the applicant his salary plus interest until 4 February 2000.

On 16 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.

THE LAW

On 28 November 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank at the date of settlement, to Mr László Sándor, with a view to securing a resolution of the application registered under no. 68112/01. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This sum shall be paid to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable.

Simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

On the same date 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 EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), or its equivalent in Hungarian forints converted at the euro foreign exchange reference rate of the European Central Bank at the date of settlement, covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus interest if payment is delayed, with a view to securing a resolution of application no. 68112/01 pending before the Court.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this payment constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application. Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued, and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

T.L. Early J.-P. Costa              Deputy Registrar President