SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33208/06
by Katalin MÉSZÁROS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 
1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2006,
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 friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Katalin Mészáros, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Kecskemét. She was represented before the Court by Mr Zs. Mihály, a lawyer practising in Kecskemét. 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 May 1995 the applicant and several others plaintiffs brought a warranty claim against the Kecskemét Municipality. Following a joinder, the case involved altogether 14 plaintiffs.
After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of two experts, on 8 June 2004 the Kecskemét District Court transferred the case to the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, for reasons of competence.
On 21 June 2005 the Regional Court found for plaintiffs in part.
This decision was upheld by the Szeged Court of Appeal on 
27 March 2006.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the protraction of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 22 April 2008 the 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 Katalin Mészáros 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.”
On 6 May 2008 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 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 of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention 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