THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2460/04 by Silvo TRATAR 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 S tanley Naismith , Deputy S ection Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 October 2003,

Having regard to the written submiss ions of the parties, and the friendly settlement reached,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The application was lodged by Mr Silvo Tratar, a Slovenian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Koper. He had no representative before the Court . 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.

1. First set of proceedings

On 10 September 1991 the applicant instituted a labour dispute before the Ljubljana Labour Court ( Delovno in socialno sodi šče v Ljubljani ) against his former employer requesting adequate remuneration.

On 28 June 1994 the first-instance court upheld his request. An appeal was lodged.

On 1 February 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court ( Višje delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani ) modified the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 23 September 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law and upheld the second-instance judgment.

2 . Second set of proceedings

On 15 September 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia (“the Ministry”) before the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit ( Delovno sodišče v Kopru, Oddelek v Postojni ), seeking payment of a portion of his salary and unpaid bene fits .

On 25 April 1996 the first-instance court deliver ed a judgment, upholding the applicant ’ s claim . T he Ministry appealed .

On 13 July 1998 the second-instance court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examinati on.

On 22 December 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim in whole . The applicant appealed.

On 14 November 2003 the second-instance court dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 8 December 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law as not allowed.

Relevant domestic law

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Nezirović v. Slovenia decision (no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings had been excessively long and under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy in that regard.

THE LAW

1. First set of proceedings

The Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the application on 15 July 200 8 (Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court) , the applicant received the State Attorney ’ s Office ’ s settlement proposal of 9 February 2009 under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) , acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. Further to the receipt of the applicant ’ s reply, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted the settlement proposal.

Subsequently, the applicant sent a copy of the settlement, on which he added a sentence in writing informing the Court that he wishes to withdraw his application.

The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention 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 his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). 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 this part of the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.

2. Second set of proceedings

Having regard to the fact that this set of proceedings is the same as the fifth set of proceedings already considered in the Tratar v. Slovenia judgment (app. nos. 76141/01, 25387/02 and 5925/05, 4 October 2007) the application in so far as it concerns the second set of proceedings should be rejected under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention for being essentially the same as the matter previously examined.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application in so far as it concerns the first set of proceedings out of its list of cases,

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

S tanley Naismith Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President