THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23918/03
by Mihael KOLAR and others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 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 22 July 2003,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Mihael Kolar, is the son of Mrs Ida Marin (the second applicant) and Mr Radovan Kolar (the third applicant). The first and second applicants are Slovenian nationals who were born on 1985 and 1964 respectively and live in Petrovče.
The third applicant was a Slovenian national who was born in 1962 and also lived in Petrovče. He died on 21 June 2004, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 22 March 2005 the Žalec Local Court declared that the first applicant was the third applicant’s sole heir. On 11 November 2009 the first applicant declared that he wished to pursue the part of the application concerning the third applicant.
The first and the second applicant were represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 June 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against I. and I. Koncern in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries that the first applicant had sustained in a car accident. They also sought an exemption from paying court fees.
On 8 May 2005 the first-instance judgment was delivered. The court upheld in part the first and the second applicant’s claim. It also terminated the proceedings in respect of the third applicant who had died in the meantime.
The first applicant appealed.
On 16 November 2006 the Celje Higher Court upheld the first applicant’s appeal in part and modified the first-instance court’s judgment accordingly.
On 9 January 2007 the first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 6 January 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first applicant’s appeal on points of law in part and modified the first-instance court’s judgment accordingly.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the undue length of the domestic proceedings and in substance also about the lack of an effective remedy (Article 13).
THE LAW
On 23 October 2008 the President of the Chamber decided that the case should be communicated to the Government for observations on its admissibility and merits.
On 27 February 2009 the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the first and second applicants. Since the third applicant had died, no friendly settlement offer was made in respect of his complaints.
By the settlement agreements signed by the State’s Attorney’s Office and the first and second applicants, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the first and second applicants the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The first and second applicants accepted the amount as 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 their complaints.
The first and second applicants subsequently informed the Court, in writing, that the case had been settled at the domestic level and that they wished to withdraw their part of the application. However, since no settlement proposal was made as regards the third applicant’s complaints, the first applicant maintained that he wished to pursue the proceedings in respect of his late father.
As a result, on 22 September 2010, the Government was invited under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of the Court to submit further observations on admissibility and merits.
On 19 October 2010 the Government informed the Court that a friendly settlement, acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepting to pay the first applicant the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred, was reached also in respect of the third applicant’s complaints. Subsequently, the first applicant withdrew also the part of the application concerning the third applicant.
The Court first notes that the first applicant as the sole heir of the third applicant wished to continue the present proceedings on behalf of his late father and finds that there are no obstacles for him to do so (see, for example, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008).
Furthermore, the Court takes note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. 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) and (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Holds that the first applicant has standing to continue the present proceedings in the third applicant’s stead;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliElisabet FuraDeputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy