FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18749/04
by Mustafa VELADŽIĆ and Others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2004,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mustafa Veladžić is a Slovenian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Domžale (Slovenia). The applicant Mr Ramiz Veladžić is a Bosnian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bihać (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The applicant Mr Hamdija Ljubijankić is a Bosnian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Osredak (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Mr Ramiz Veladžić and Mr Hamdija Ljubijankić were represented before the Court by Mr Mustafa Veladžić. Mr Mustafa Veladžić was represented before the Court by Mr M. Merkelj, a lawyer practising in Domžale.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicants were parties to several sets of proceedings. One of them was 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. They further complained that the domestic proceedings were unfair and that the domestic courts were biased.
In the present case, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, 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 application introduced before the Court.
THE LAW
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 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) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsGanna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy