THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application nos. 289/05, 2462/05 , 17321/05, 26079/05, 29809/05, 30361/05 and 31296/05 against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Corneliu Bîrsan , Boštjan M. Zupančič , Egbert Myjer , Ineta Ziemele , Luis López Guerra , Ann Power , judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the Government ’ s settlement proposals made to the applicants,

Having d eliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are all nationals of Slovenia (see the attached appendix). Mr Janez Bokan, Mr Robert Sebanc, Mr Damjan Pevec and Ms Tanja Mikulin were represented before the Court by Mr Zlatko Lipej, a lawyer practicing in Medvode. Mr Stevo Škrobot, Mr Ivan Aristovnik, Ms Ela Aristovnik and Mr Peter Aristovnik were represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Ms Ida Fištrovič was represented before the Court by Mr Roman Završek, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana .

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) w ere represented by their Agent , Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General .

A. The circumstances of the case

The applicants were parties to civil proc eedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay ( Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , Official Gazette , No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) became operational on 1 January 2007 .

Section 25 lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court :

Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained prior to implementation of this Act

“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney ’ s Office shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within four months after the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney ’ s Office within two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State Attorney ’ s Office. The State Attorney ’ s Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within a period of four months at the latest... ..

(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney ’ s Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four months after the date on which the party filed its proposal, the party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act. The party may bring an action within six months after receiving the State Attorney ’ s Office reply that the party ’ s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney ’ s Office to decide to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long . They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).

THE LAW

I n the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2008, all the applicants received the State Attorney ’ s Office ’ s settlement proposals under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage (see the appendix) . It further notes that the applicants have since been in a position either to negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney ’ s Office or, if that sh ould be unsuccessful, to lodg e a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above) . The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008).

The Court reiterates 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

...

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

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.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the applications and that they should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) . In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore a case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Year of Birth

Address

Application No.

Date of Introduction

Date of sett lement proposal or agreement si g n ed by the State Attorney

1.Janez BOKAN

1972Medvode

289/05

10/12/2004

13/01/2009

2.Ivan, Ela in Peter ARISTOVNIK

1944, 1947, 1997

Velenje

2462/05

10/01/2005

30/01/2009

3.Stevo Å KROBOT

1976Velenje

17321/05

15/04/2005

20/01/2009

4.Ida FIŠTROVIČ

1954Vrhnika

26079/05

08/07/2005

14/01/2009

5.Robert SEBANC

1977Å kofljica

29809/05

08/08/2005

12/02/2009

6 .

Damjan PEVEC

1985Pristava pri Mestinju

30361/05

01/08/2005

12/02/2009

7 .

Tanja MIKULIN

1974Ribnica

31296/05

20/08/2005

14/01/2009