FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3684/12
Matjaž BERTONCELJ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 May 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 January 2012,
Having regard to the applicant’s withdrawal of the application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Matjaž Bertoncelj, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Ljubljana. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant was a party to civil proceedings, which were terminated in 2005 before the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational. Subsequently, he instituted proceedings against the State seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages sustained as a consequence of the undue length of proceedings. He did receive compensation, although not in the amount sought.
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted unduly long and that he did not receive adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they offered the applicant a settlement awarding him the difference in compensation in accordance with the Court’s standards. By a letter of 9 April 2013 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court.
THE LAW
The Court takes note that the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy