FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 26190/05, 28673/05, 25183/06, 30503/06, 5641/07 and 6352/07
by Štefan HROVAT and Others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Slovenian nationals.
The applicant Mr Štefan Hrovat (application no. 26190/05) was born in 1950 and lives in Medvode. The applicant Mr Marko Brili-Lavrič (application no. 28673/05) was born in 1995 and lives in Ljubljana. The applicant Ms Maja Trost (application no. 25183/06) was born in 1978 and lives in Žalec. The applicant Mr Ivo Pavić (application no. 30503/06) was born in 1968 and lives in Velenje. The applicant Mr Slobodan Rabič (application no. 5641/07) was born in 1949 and lives in Mojstrana. The applicant Ms Sonja Raner (application no. 6352/07) was born in 1945 and lives in Ljubljana.
The applicants Mr Štefan Hrovat, Mr Marko Brili-Lavrič and Ms Sonja Raner were represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practising in Medvode. The applicants Ms Maja Trost and Mr Ivo Pavić were represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Mr Slobodan Rabič was represented before the Court by Ms M. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicants were parties to proceedings which were finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants.
By the settlement agreements signed by the State Attorney’s Office and the applicants, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicants the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The applicants accepted the amount as a full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the above proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.
The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached settlements with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.
The Court takes note that following the settlements reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants wish to withdraw their applications. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the applications to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsGanna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy