THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37344/02
by Magdalena KRAJNC
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC. Bîrsan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Magdalena Krajnc, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Šentjur. She was represented before the Court by Mrs M. Nosan, a lawyer practising in Celje.
The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 April 1999 the judgment dissolving the applicant’s marriage became final.
On 19 June 1999 the applicant lodged a request for disjunction of a joint property with the Šentjur pri Celju Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Šentjurju pri Celju).
On 3 August 2000 an expert was appointed to asses the possibility to divide the house owned by the applicant and her former husband into two separate accommodation facilities.
On 25 October 2000 and on 17 May 2002 the expert opinions were submitted to the court.
On 22 May 2001 and 17 January 2002 the applicant requested that the proceedings continued.
On 18 January 2002 she withdrew her request for disjunction as far as the common tangible goods were concerned in order to speed up the proceedings concerning the real estate in question.
Of the two hearings held on 19 April 2000 and 18 January 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
These proceedings were allegedly still pending at the time of the communication of the present application to the Government. No further information in respect of the facts of the case has been received by the Court since then.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial was violated by an excessive length of proceedings. In substance, she also complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 2 February 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Lucijan Bembič, Agent of the Republic of Slovenia, declare that the Government of Slovenia offer to pay 1,800 euros to Mrs Magdalena Krajnc with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and it will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...”
On 26 January 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Magdalena Krajnc, note that the Government of Slovenia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 1,800 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and it will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovenia in respect of the facts giving raise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaCorneliu Bîrsan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy