FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35731/06 by Franc BUSER against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Angelika Nußberger , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registra r ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2006,

Having regard to the Government ’ s settlement proposal made to the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Franc Buser , is a Slovenian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Ponikva . He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje .

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent .

The applicant w as a part y to proceedings which were finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act on the Pr otection of the Right to a Trial w ithout Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act ” ) .

C OMPLAINTS

The applicant 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 case , the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application , they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant.

By the settlement agreement signed by the State Attorney ’ s Office and the applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, offered the applicant to make a written statement as a compensation for non-pecuniary damage and accepted to pay the applicant costs and expenses incurred. The applicant accepted the proposed written statement 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 subsequently informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State Attorney ’ s Office and that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court.

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 wishes to withdraw his 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 out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

             Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska              Deputy Registrar              President