THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42038/06
by Andrej GULIN
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Andrej Gulin, a Slovenian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Nova Gorica. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Đurković, a lawyer practising in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 27 December 1994 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant who was accused of a sexual attack on a minor. On 6 April 1999 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against him.
On 15 April 2004 these proceedings were joined to the proceedings instituted against another person allegedly implicated in the same event.
On 14 September 2004 a first hearing was held before the court. After the remittal of the case by the Koper Higher Court, the applicant was acquitted on 14 June 2006.
THE LAW
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable and that as a result of the lengthy proceedings, which had been conducted in his hometown, his reputation had been severely damaged.
On 4 November 2010, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that a settlement proposal had been sent to the applicant in the context of the domestic settlement proceedings based on section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Journal, No. 49/2006). The proposal included an acknowledged of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time as well as an offer of 5,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 550,80 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court. On 14 December 2010 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw the application since he had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office on 14 October 2010.
The Court notes that a matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant does not wish to pursue his application. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy