SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42530/05
by Lajos BUZÁSSY
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 November 2005,
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, Mr Lajos Buzássy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Pécs. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Schiffer, 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 14 May 1999 a bill of indictment was preferred against the applicant. He was charged with the forgery of an official document.
After numerous hearings, on 25 February 2003 the Buda Central District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine. The court held that the applicant's testimony was implausible and that he must have known that the impugned document had contained untrue information when he had made use of it.
On appeal, on 24 May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction, while it reversed the first-instance judgment in respect of the four co-defendants, for various reasons. The court held that, in so far as the applicant's guilt was concerned, it was bound by the findings of fact as established by the first-instance court and that it was prevented by the law from making a different assessment of the evidence than the District Court.
COMPLAINTS	
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the protraction of the proceedings. Moreover, he submitted, without further explaining or substantiating that complaint, that the Regional Court's reluctance to re-assess the evidence in his favour had amounted to a breach of Article 13.
THE LAW
On 22 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Hungary offer to pay 4,800 euros to Mr Lajos Buzássy 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 will be 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 25 September 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 4,800 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 will be 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 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