FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17480/06
Miloš BEVK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 April 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Miloš Bevk, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Škofja Loka. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 May 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against V.B. in the Kranj District Court, seeking a larger share of their joint property.
On an undetermined date, N.P. and Z.P. joined the proceedings as third parties on the defendant’s side.
On 3 March 2004 the Kranj District Court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part and rejecting the remainder. The applicant, N.P. and Z.P. appealed.
On 6 October 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court gave a judgment upholding the appeals and remitting the case for re-examination.
On 29 June 2005 the Kranj District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant, V.B. and N.P. appealed.
On 18 January 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court.
The last decision in the case was issued on 13 December 2007.
THE LAW
A. Complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the applicant as regards the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his complaints under Articles 6 and 13.
The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application in the part concerning his complaints about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. 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 application as far as it concerns the above complaints out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts’ decisions amounted to a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases with regard to the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy