THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 16168/06, 23040/06, 28239/06, 28285/06, 28670/06, 48861/06, 48870/06, 49367/06, 50371/06 and 50647/06
by Mitja SOFTIĆ and 9 others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy 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 regard to Protocol No. 14 bis,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are all Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia.
The applicant Mr Mitja Softić was represented before the Court by Ms Barica Zidar, a lawyer practising in Celje. Mr Rahman Dragonić was represented before the Court by Ms Jasmina Gričnik, a lawyer practicing in Žalec. Ms Mateja Drev and Mr Radovan Markovič were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Ms Marjetica Vranković and Ms Nika Nahtigal were represented before the Court by Ms Marjana Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana. Ms Branka Bilič was represented before the Court by Ms Manja Krainer, a lawyer practicing in Radovljica. Mr Dušan Bončina was represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Mr Stojan Dominko was represented before the Court by Matjaž Klep, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Irena Nekrep, Ms Barbara Šmid and Mr Bojan Naumovič were represented before the Court by Mr Leon Benigar Tošič, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana.
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.
1. 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.
2. Subsequently, they 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).
3. Furthermore, some of the applicants were also parties to a separate set of proceedings which had terminated before 1 January 2007.
4. In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court under the 2006 Act.
The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.
COMPLAINTS
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.
Mr Stojan Dominko also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to an independent and impartial tribunal has been breached, since the representative of the opposite party to the proceedings latter became the president of one of the courts before which the case had been brought, though not the judge hearing the case.
THE LAW
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.
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.
The applicants subsequently 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. Moreover, also Mr Stojan Dominko informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court.
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.”
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 application. 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 cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) 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.
Stanley NaismithElisabet 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.
16168/06
Mitja Softić
1972
Rimske Toplice
22/03/2006
20/01/2010, 450,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 275,40 EUR for costs and expenses
25/01/2010
2.
23040/06
Rahman Dragonić
1955
Velenje
08/05/2006
12/02/2010, 1440,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413,10 EUR for costs and expenses
18/02/2010
3.
28239/06
Mateja Drev
1971
Velenje
12/06/2006
07/11/2008, 1.440,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 330,00 EUR for costs and expenses
02/10/2009
4.
28285/06
Marjetica Vranković
1946
Ljubljana
20/06/2006
07/09/2009, 2.880,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 420,95 EUR for costs and expenses
07/09/2009
5.
28670/06
Nika Nahtigal
1969
Kamnik
14/06/2006
30/06/2009, 540,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 293,27 EUR for costs and expenses
03/07/2009
6.
48861/06
Branka Bilič
1949
Kranjska Gora
15/11/2006
31/08/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 550,80 EUR for costs and expenses
10/09/2009
7.
48870/06
Dušan Bončina
1950
Gomilsko
16/11/2006
01/07/2009, 450,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 288,25 EUR for costs and expenses
01/07/2009
8.
49367/06
Stojan Dominko
1953
Brežice
15/11/2006
11/09/2009, 2880,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413,12 EUR for costs and expenses
11/09/2009
9.
50371/06
Irena Nekrep
Barbara Šmid
Bojan Naumovič
1951
1957
1963
Ljubljana
Ljubljana
Ljubljana
29/11/2006
29/08/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage;
14/09/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage, and 605,90 EUR for costs and expenses incurred together with Mr Naumovič;
14/09/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage, and 605,90 EUR for costs and expenses incurred together with Ms Šmid
15/09/2009
10.
50647/06
Radovan Markovič
1957
Ljubljana
06/12/2006
28/08/2009, 3.600 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 424,87 EUR for costs and expenses
02/09/2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy