LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
VLAHOVIC v. SLOVENIA
Doc ref: 33727/03;30922/06;31550/06;35828/06;35855/06;41345/06 • ECHR ID: 001-100948
Document date: September 21, 2010
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
VLAHOVIC v. SLOVENIA
Doc ref: 33727/03;30922/06;31550/06;35828/06;35855/06;41345/06 • ECHR ID: 001-100948
Document date: September 21, 2010
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application s no s . 33727/03, 30922/06, 31550/06, 35828/06, 35855/06, 41345/06 by Bojana VLAHOVIČ and Others against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a C ommittee composed of:
Elisabet Fura , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Ineta Ziemele , judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application s,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having regard to the settlement agr eements signed by the parties ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows :
THE FACTS
The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia .
The applicants Ms Bojana Vlahovič and Mr Edvard Rajh were represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . The applicants Ms Andreja Dobrotinšek , Mr Anton Mernik and Mr Ibrahim Džogić were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . The applicant Ms Dušica Pregrad Podbevšek was represented by the Čeferin lawyers practising in Grosuplje .
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič , State Attorney-General.
The circumstances of the case s
The facts of the case s , as submitted by the applicant s , may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were parties to 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, they lodged appeal s on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ). The applicant Ms Dušica Pregrad Podbevšek also lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ).
The details concerning the case s are indicated in the attached table.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants 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 cases, the Court notes that, after the applications had been communicated to the Government for observations on admissibility and merits , the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants.
By the settlement agreements signed by the State ' s 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 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 ' s Attorney ' s Office and that they wished to withdraw their application s introduced before the Court.
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 settlement s reached between the parties the matter s ha ve been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant s do not wish to pursue 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) and (b) 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.
Santiago Quesada Elisabet Fura Registrar President
Appendix
No.
Application No.
Applicant ' s Name
Year of Birth
Address
Date of Introduction
Date of settlement proposal or agreement signed by the State Attorney
Date of the applicant ' s withdrawal of the application
Amount of compensation
in euros
1.
33727/03
Bojana VLAHOVIČ
1977Velenje
30/09/2003
12/11/2008
18/11/2008
820.79
2.
30922/06
Edvard RAJH
1974Dobje
12/07/2006
21/09/2009
24/09/2009
823.25
3.
31550/06
Andreja DOBROTINÅ EK
1978Vojnik
20/07/2006
05/11/2009
17/11/2009
825 . 84
4.
35828/06
Anton MERNIK
1960Slovenska Bistrica
22/08/2006
03/11/2009
09/11/2009
4,760.90
5.
35855/06
Ibrahim DŽOGIĆ
1951Velenje
22/08/2006
29/10/2009
10/11/2009
2,224.45
6.
41345/06
Dušica PREGRAD PODBEVŠEK
1957Ljubljana
28/09/2006
09/10/2009
11/11/2009
815.40
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
