FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 4283/07 by Mateja VREÄŒKO against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 27 September 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 18 December 2006,

Having reg ard to the settlement agreement signed by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mateja Vrečko, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Nova Cerkev . She was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . The Slovenian Government (“the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant was a party to the 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. Subsequently, she lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ), which delivered its judgment on 19 June 2008.

THE LAW

T he Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the present application under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court , they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant.

By the settlement agreement signed by the State ’ s Attorney ’ s Office and the applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicant the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred . The applicant accepted the amount as 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 these complaints.

On 8 June 2011 t he applicant informed the Court that she had reached a settlement with the State ’ s Attorney ’ s Office and that she wished to withdraw her 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 does not wish to pursue her 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