THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 8327/06, 17007/06, 17021/06, 18041/06, 17048/06 and 18285/06 by Martina LAMPREHT and 5 Others against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section), sitting on 3 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Elisabet Fura-Sandström , Corneliu Bîrsan , Boštjan M. Zupančič , Alvina Gyulumyan , Egbert Myjer , Luis López Guerra , judges, and Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on 20 February 2006, 23 February 2006, 23 March 2006 and 28 March 2006,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant s are Slovenian national s who live in Slovenia . All applicants were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan - Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were 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. T he relevant details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.

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.”

COMPLAINT S

1. The applicant s complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings.

2. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard .

THE LAW

On 10 July 2008 and 15 July 2008 , respectively, the respondent Government were given notice o f the applications.

Subsequently, on the dates indicated in the attached table , the State Attorney ' s Office sent settlement proposals to the applicants under section 25 of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above) . In its proposals, the State Attorney ' s Office acknowledged the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and «StateNameEnglish» offered to pay monetary compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses connected with the case to each applicant. The amount offered to the applicants by the State Attorney ' s Office depended on the individual circumstances of each case (see attached table).

Further to the receipt of the applicants ' replies, the Government informed the Court that the applicants had accepted the settlement proposals.

On 6 October, 20 October and 7 November 2008 each of the applicants informed the Court, in writing, that the cases had been settled at the domestic level and that they wished to withdraw their applications.

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 settlements reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants do not wish to pursue their applications (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 applications to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

In these circumstances, the c ases should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the application s out of its list of cases.

Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President

No.

App. No.

Name

Date of lodging

of the application

Date of introduction of domestic proceedings

Date of final decision

Relevant period

Date of the State Attorney ' s settlement proposal

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total Settlement Figure

1.

8327/06

Martina LAMPREHT

20 February 2006

18 April 2002

5 December 2006

(served on 23 February 2007)

four years and nine months at

one level of jurisdiction

19 September 2008

1,440 €

423.13 €

1,863.13 €

2.

17007 / 06

Martin KUMER

23 March 2006

9 December 2002

22 November 2005

(served on 9 January 2006)

three years and one month at

one level of jurisdiction

29 October 2008

900 €

285.84 €

1,185.84 €

3.

17021/06

Martin & Marko KLANÄŒIÅ AR

2 3 March 2006

7 February 1997

26 September 2005

(served on 4 January 2006)

eight years and ten month s at

one level of jurisdiction

29 October 2008

3,600 € to each applicant

612.30 € to both together

7,812.30 €

4.

18041 / 06

Štefanija ZELIČ

28 March 2006

2 October 2001

24 November 2005

( served on 7 December 2005 )

four years and two month at

two levels of jurisdiction

20 October 2008

900 €

288 . 76 €

1,188.76 €

5 .

17048/06

Ana GAJÅ T

23 March 2006

29 April 1998

26 January 2006 – friendly settlement

(served on 27 January 2006)

seven years and ten month s at

three levels of jurisdiction

29 October 2008

450 €

286 . 80 €

736 . 80 €

6.

18285/06

Miroslav BIZJAK

23 February 2006

10 June 2002

15 December 2005 (served on 26 January 2006)

three years and six months at one level of jurisdiction

3 October 2008

1,080 €

286.75 €

1,366.75 €