THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3386/06
by Nataša STEPIŠNIK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having regard to the settlement agreement signed by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nataša Stepišnik, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Petrovče. She was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 December 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for injuries sustained in a car accident.
On 5 May 2004 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. On 20 May 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal.
On 23 December 2005 Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) issued a judgment upholding the appeal in part.
On 27 February 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay, which was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on 25 October 2007. The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 November 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant 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
On 27 May 2009 the President of the Chamber decided that the case should be communicated to the Government for observations on its admissibility and merits.
On 16 September 2009 the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant.
By the settlement agreement signed by the State’s Attorney’s Office and the applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicant 540 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and 286.59 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. The applicant accepted the amount 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.
For her part, on 21 September 2009, the applicant informed the Court 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.
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 applicant does not wish to pursue her 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 case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy