THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33530/02
by Stanko ANTONIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Hedigan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2001,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stanko Antonič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Celje. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan-Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
The respondent Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1991, the applicant was injured while playing tennis. The owner of the tennis court had taken out liability insurance with the insurance company ZT.
On 4 November 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 760,000 Slovenian tolars for the injury sustained.
Between 17 February 1994 and 19 February 1998 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written observations and/or adduced evidence.
Between 17 February 1994 and 1 April 1998 he made eleven requests that a hearing be scheduled.
None of the four hearing scheduled between 28 August 1995 and 29 June 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the hearings the court appointed a medical expert who delivered an expert opinion.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment in which it upheld the applicant’s claims in part.
On 22 July 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). He also requested the first-instance court to correct its judgment. ZT cross-appealed.
On 10 September 1998 the first-instance court corrected the judgment of 29 June 1998.
On 9 February 1999 the Higher Court partly allowed both appeals, set the first-instance court’s judgment aside in part, and remitted the case for fresh examination.
Between 27 September 1999 and 17 January 2001 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions in the proceedings before the Celje Local Court.
None of the three hearings held between 10 November 1999 and 12 February 2001 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claims in part, was served on the applicant on 9 May 2001.
On 16 May 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 28 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and rejected the defendant’s appeal.
On 19 April 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 24 April 2002 the applicant’s adversary sought leave with the Celje Local Court for reinstatement of the case in order to have his appeal against the judgment of 12 February 2001 examined.
On 28 May 2002 the Celje Local Court granted the leave.
On 31 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 28 May 2002 with the Celje Higher Court.
On 18 September 2002 the Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal.
The case is pending before the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings. He also complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 3 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Lucijan Bembič, Agent of the Republic of Slovenia, declare that the Government of Slovenia offer to pay ex gratia 4,165 euros to Mr Stanko Antonič with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and 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...”
On 8 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Stanko Antonič, note that the Government of Slovenia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 4,165 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 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...
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovenia in respect of the facts of 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 (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously:
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerJohn Hedigan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy