Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s nos. 712/04, 17863/04, 24197/04, 13294/05, 25242/05, 38979/05, 40774/05 and 45029/05 against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Elisabet Fura-Sandström , Boštjan M. Zupančič , Alvina Gyulumyan , Ineta Ziemele , Luis López Guerra , Ann Power , judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having regard to the settlement agreements signed by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia .

The applicant Ms Vera Momić did not have a representative before the Court. The applicants Mr Branko Borinc, Mr Bajro Hodžić, Ms Dragica Repas and Ms Zdenka Gombač were rep resented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Ms Marjetka Kušar was represented before the Court by Mr Roman Završek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana . The applicants Ms Alenka Planinc and Mr Janez Kotnik were rep resented before the Court by Ms Barica Zidar, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) w ere represented by their Agent , Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant s , 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 Pr otection 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 . 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.

THE LAW

I n the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications on 26 February 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 waive d any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.

T he applicant s 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.

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 s 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 case s 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 application s out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President

Appendix

No .

Application

no.

Applicant

(name, date of birth and place of residence)

Date of

lodging

of the application

Subject matter of domestic proceedings

Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings

Levels of jurisdiction

Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court

Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant

Date of the applicant ’ s withdrawal of the application

1.

712/04

Branko BORINC

19/12/2003

Compensation for damag e sustained during medical treatment

From 20/12/1999

(Celje District Court)

until

29/11/2007 (Supreme Court)

Three levels of jurisdiction

On 23/02/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which rejected

the appeal.

03/02/2009,

1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

285.00 EUR for costs and expenses

09/02/2009

2.

17863/04

Bajro HODŽIĆ

29/04/2004

Compensation for damage sustained in an accident at work

From 15/07/1996

(Celje District Court)

until

29/11/2007 (Supreme Court)

Three levels of jurisdiction

On 12/10/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which dismissed the appeal.

27/01/2009,

2,880.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

432.13 EUR for costs and expenses

05/02/2009

3.

24197/04

Dragica REPAS

23 /06/2004

Compensation for damage sustained in a car accident

From 21/09/1998

(Celje District Court).

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 20/09/2006.

The proceedings are still pending.

Three levels of jurisdiction

On 27/02/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which rejected the appeal .

12/02/2009,

1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

428.06 EUR for costs and expenses

19/02/2009

No .

Application

no.

Applicant

(name, date of birth and place of residence)

Date of

lodging

of the application

Subject matter of domestic proceedings

Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings

Levels of jurisdiction

Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court

Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant

Date of the applicant ’ s withdrawal of the application

4.

13294/05

Marjetka KUÅ AR

01/04/2005

Inheritance dispute

From 08/04/2008

( Ljubljana District Court).

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court on 16/08/2006.

The proceedings are still pending.

Five instances and three levels of jurisdiction.

No acceleratory remedies used.

02/03/2009,

1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

413.12 EUR for costs and expenses

02/03/2009

5.

25242/05

Vera MOMIĆ

27/06/2005

Labour dispute concerning the applicant ’ s salary

From 03/04/1996 ( Ljubljana Labour and Social Court )

until

19/11/2007

(Supreme Court)

Seven instances and three levels of jurisdiction

No acceleratory remedies used.

04/03/2009,

1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage

09/03/2009

No .

Application

no.

Applicant

(name, date of birth and place of residence)

Date of

lodging

of the application

Subject matter of domestic proceedings

Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings

Levels of jurisdiction

Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court

Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant

Date of the applicant ’ s withdrawal of the application

6.

38979/05

Alenka PLANINC

06/10/2005

Compensation for damage sustained during medical treatment

From 07/10/1994

( Ljubljana District Court)

until

12/09/2007 ( Constitutional Court )

Seven instances and four levels of jurisdiction

No acceleratory remedies used.

12/02/2009,

1,800. 00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

423. 68 EUR for costs and expenses

17/02/2009

7.

40774/05

Janez KOTNIK

19/10/2005

Compensation for damage sustained during military service.

From 16/07/1997

( Trbovlje Local Court )

until

08/10/2007

(Supreme Court)

Seven instances and three levels of jurisdiction

No acceleratory remedies used.

11/02/2009,

1,237.50 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

275. 41 EUR for costs and expenses

16/02/2009

8.

45029/05

Zdenka GOMBAÄŒ

18/11/2005

Compensation for damage sustained in a store.

From 20/11/1998

(Celje District Court)

until

14/01/2008. (Supreme Court)

Three levels of jurisdiction

No acceleratory remedies used.

19/01/2009,

1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and

429.30 EUR for costs and expenses

23/01/2009

Menu

BORINC v. SLOVENIA

BORINC v. SLOVENIA

LEXI