FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20083/06
Ivan MERC against Slovenia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 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 applications,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
All the applicants are Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia.
The applicant Mr Ivan Merc was represented before the Court by Mr T. Alič, a lawyer practising in Ptuj. The applicant Ms Marija Kumar was represented before the Court by Ms N. Bolcar, a lawyer practicing in Solkan. The applicant Mr Iztok Hodnik was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practicing in Medvode. 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”). They complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
After the Government had been given notice of the applications, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.
THE LAW
Pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their common factual and legal background.
The Court takes note that following the settlement 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 PhillipsAnn Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
No.
Application No.
Applicant’s Name
Date of Introduction
1.
20083/06
Ivan MERC
03/05/2006
2.
36404/06
Marija KUMAR
31/08/2006
3.
50792/06
Iztok HODNIK
01/12/2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy