THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24841/02 by Janez and Katarina DOMINKO against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Hedigan , President, Mr B.M. Zupančič , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr E. Myjer , Mr David Thór Björgvinsson , judges, and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 8 November 200 0 ,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Janez Dominko and Ms Katarina Dominko , are Slovenian nationals who live in Lendava. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Murska Sobota.

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

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows.

On 28 August 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Lendava Local Court ( Okrajno sodišče v Lendavi ) against two individuals, M.Š. and A.G., for unpaid debt.

On 22 June 2000 the applicant lodged a supervisory complaint complaining about the excessive length of proceedings.

On 25 October 2001 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.

On 2 November and 4 December 2001 the court held hearings and decided to deliver a written judgment.

The judgment was apparently served on the applicants after 28 December 2001 .

On 16 January 2002 the applicants appealed to the Maribor Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Mariboru ). The first responded cross-appealed.

On 9 June 2004 the court dismissed all appeals. The judgment was sent to the applicants on 1 July 2004 .

COMPLAINT S

The applicant s complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which they were a party was excessive. In substance, they also complain ed about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13).

THE LAW

On 17 March 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Lucijan B embič , Agent of the Republic of Slovenia, declare that the Government of Slovenia offer to pay ex gratia 2,300 euros to Janez and Katarina Dominko with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and it will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...”

On 6 April 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“We, Janez and Katarina Dominko, note that the Government of Slovenia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 2,300 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...

We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovenia in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case...”

The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Vincent Berger John H edigan Registrar President