FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20201/06
by Marija VOGELSANG and Others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 September 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 April 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the second and third applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant Ms Katja Vogelsang (the second applicant) is a Slovenian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Celje. She is a daughter of Ms Marija Vogelsang (the first applicant), a Slovenian national, who was born in 1943 and lived in Celje. The first applicant died on 13 October 2007, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 2 July 2008 the second applicant declared that she wished to pursue the part of the application concerning the first applicant. The applicant Ms Kurnik Antonija (the third applicant) is a Slovenian national who was born in 1921 and lives in Celje.
The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms J. Jazbinšek - Goričan, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings to which they were parties and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that the second and the third applicant and the State’s Attorney’s Office had reached a friendly settlement.
The second and the third applicant subsequently informed the Court that they wished to withdraw their application introduced before the Court. The second applicant expressly informed the Court, that she wished to withdraw the application also in respect of the late first applicant.
THE LAW
The Court first notes that the second applicant as the only heir of the first applicant wished to continue the present proceedings on behalf of her late mother and finds that there are no obstacles for her to do so (see, for example, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008).
Furthermore, the Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. 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
Holds that the second applicant has standing to continue the present proceedings in the first applicant’s stead;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsGanna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy