THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s nos. 15555/06 and 26045/06 by Leopold Karlo BIZJAK and Bojan ZVONAR against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 June 2010 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabet Fura , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Ineta Ziemele , judges, and Stanley Naismith , Deputy S ection Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having regard to Protocol No. 14,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS

1 . The applicant Mr Leopold Karlo Bizjak is a Slovenian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Koper . He is represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . The applicant Mr Bojan Zvonar is a Slovenian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Zavrč . He is represented before the Court by Mr Iztok Brumec , a lawyer practising in Slovenske Konjice .

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

COMPLAINTS

3 . 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

4 . A fter the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2009 , they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made settlement proposals to the applicants. They 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.

5 . The observations were forwarded to the applicant s, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ' s letter s .

6 . By letter s dated 1 April 2010 , sent by registered post, the applicant s ' representative s were again requested to respond to the Registry ' s letters. The applicant s ' representative s ' attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Both applicant s ' representative s received the letter on 9 April 2010 . However, no response has been received in either case .

7 . 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

...

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.”

8 . The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant s may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application s , within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case s .

9 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

S tanley Naismith Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar President