THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 50455/06 and 50611/06
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having regard to the settlement agreements signed by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are all Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia.
2. The applicants Mr Franc Sluga, Ms Veronika Brank, Mr Ivan Rupert and Mr Marko Milačič were represented before the Court by Mr Leon Benigar Tošič, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. Ms Karmen Kramberger-Zonta was represented before the Court by Mr Jurij Žorž, a lawyer practicing in Koper.
3. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
4. 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.
5. Subsequently, they lodged appeals on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
COMPLAINTS
6. All 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
7. In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2009, they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants.
8. 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. To the applicants Mr Franc Sluga, Ms Veronika Brank, Mr Ivan Rupert and Mr Marko Milačič the Government offered 5.000,00 EUR each for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and 716,06 EUR jointly for the costs and expenses incurred. To the applicant Ms Karmen Kramberger-Zonta the Government offered 2.520,00 EUR for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and 433,96 EUR for the costs and expenses incurred. The applicants accepted the amounts 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 this complaint.
9. On 1 October 2009 the applicants Mr Franc Sluga, Ms Veronika Brank, Mr Ivan Rupert and Mr Marko Milačič informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that they wished to withdraw their application introduced before the Court. Similarly, the applicant Ms Karmen Kramberger-Zonta informed the Court on 17 February 2010 that she had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that she wished to withdraw her application introduced before the Court.
10. 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; or
(b) the matter has been resolved;
...
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.”
11. 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 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).
12. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaElisabet Fura
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy