THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 18516/06, 19158/06, 21193/06, 22177/06, 29823/06, 29880/06, 30116/06, 30185/06, 30482/06, 48747/06, 51053/06 and 8645/07 by Omerzu Šavrič and others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2010 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 applications,
Having regard to the Government's settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are all nationals of Slovenia (see the attached appendix).
2. The applicant Ms B. Omerzu Šavrič was represented before the Court by Ms J. Goričan Jazbinšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
3. The applicants Ms S. Jambrošič, Mr D. Barbulovič, Mr R. Vehabovič, Mr M. Kok and Mr Z. Oljača were represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
4. The applicants Ms A. Lesjak and Mr B. Kuhar were represented before the Court by Mr D. Teržan, a lawyer practising in Celje.
5. The applicants Mr M. Premru, Mr F. Uršič and Mr A. Turinek were represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
6. The applicant Mr A. Horvat was represented before the Court by Mr N. Grgurevič, a lawyer practising in Maribor.
7. The applicant Mr D. Turk was represented before the Court by Ms R. Godnjov Špik, a lawyer practising in Tržič.
8. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The circumstances of the cases
9. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
10. The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved (pravnomočno končan postopek) before 1 January 2007, that is, before the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial Without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational.
11. Subsequently, some of them lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).
12. In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies under the 2006 Act.
13. The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).
15. The applicant in application no. 51053/06 also complained that his rights under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention were violated due to the undue length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. Complaint about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
16. In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2010, they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants.
17. By the settlement agreements signed by the State's 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.
18. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached settlements with the State's Attorney's Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.
19. The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
20. 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 do not wish to pursue 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 application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
21. 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.
2. Remaining complaints
22. As to the remaining complaints in app. no. 51053/06, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 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 with regard to the complaints about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;
Decides to declare the remaining complaints in the application no. 51053/06 inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application No.
Applicant's Name
Year of Birth
Address
Date of Introduction
Date of domestic settlement and compensation paid to the applicant
Date of the applicant's withdrawal of the application
1.
18516/06
Bernarda OMERZU
ŠAVRIČ
1919
Celje
05/04/2006
19/07/2010, 5,000.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 559.81 EUR for costs and expenses
08/09/2010
2.
19158/06
Silva JAMBROŠIČ
1955
Maribor
26/04/2006
22/09/2010, 5,000.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 577.92 EUR for costs and expenses
28/09/2010
3.
21193/06
Dragoljub BARBULOVIČ
1949
Celje
19/04/2006
12/10/2010, 900.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 285.08 EUR for costs and expenses
13/10/2010
4.
22177/06
Ramiz VEHABOVIČ
1957
Trbovlje
10/05/2006
28/07/2010, 900.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 298.27 EUR for costs and expenses
26/08/2010
5.
29823/06
Marjan KOK
1975
Radeče
11/07/2006
09/09/2010, 315.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 147.38 EUR for costs and expenses
22/09/2010
6.
29880/06
Anica LESJAK
1955
Gorica pri Slivnici
08/07/2006
06/09/2010, 540.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 287.42 EUR for costs and expenses
13/09/2010
7.
30116/06
Milan PREMRU
Franc URŠIČ
1949
1948
Piran
Sečovlje
10/07/2006
27/09/2010, 900.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage to each applicant and 323.30 EUR for costs and expenses
29/09/2010
8.
30185/06
Boštjan KUHAR
1970
Petrovče
10/07/2006
07/09/2010, 2,160.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 425.11 EUR for costs and expenses
13/09/2010
9.
30482/06
Zdravko OLJAČA
1960
Velenje
19/07/2006
30/08/2010, 1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 285.08 EUR for costs and expenses
10/09/2010
10.
48747/06
Andrej TURINEK
1973
Skorno pri Šoštanju
14/11/2006
17/09/2010, 540.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 287.42 EUR for costs and expenses
22/09/2009
11.
51053/06
Anton HORVAT
1957
Maribor
07/12/2006
19/08/2010, 1,800.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413.10 EUR for costs and expenses
04/10/2010
12.
8645/07
Drago TURK
1948
Preserje
28/12/2006
01/10/2010, 2,160.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 421.37 EUR for costs and expenses
06/10/2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy