FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 26190/05, 28673/05, 25183/06, 30503/06, 5641/07 and 6352/07

by Å tefan HROVAT and Others

against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:

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

Having regard to the above applications,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovenia n nationals.

The applicant Mr Štefan Hrovat (application no. 26190/05) was born in 1950 and lives in Medvode . The applicant Mr Marko Brili-Lavrič (application no. 28673/05) was born in 1995 and lives in Ljubljana . The applicant Ms Maja Tro s t (application no. 25183/06) was born in 1978 and lives in Žalec . The applicant Mr Ivo Pavić (application no. 30503/06) was born in 1968 and lives in Velenje . The applicant Mr Slobodan Rabič (application no . 5641/07) was born in 1949 and lives in Mojstrana . The applicant Ms Sonja Raner (application no. 6352/07) was born in 1945 and lives in Ljubljana .

The applicants Mr Štefan Hrovat , Mr Marko Brili-Lavrič and Ms Sonja Raner were rep resented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej , a lawyer practising in Medvode . The applicants Ms Maja Tro s t and Mr Ivo Pavić were repres ented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . The applicant Mr Slobodan Rabič was represented before the Court by Ms M. Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Ljubljana .

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

The applicants were parties 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 applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civi l 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 cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants.

By the settlement agreements signed by the State Attorney ’ s Office and the applicants, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicants the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred . The applicants accepted the amount 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 s subsequently informed the Court that they had reached settlement s with the State Attorney ’ s Office and that they wished to withdraw their application s introduced before the Court.

The Court takes note that following the settlement s reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant s wish to withdraw their application s . It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application s to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

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

             Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska              Deputy Registrar              President