THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s nos. 16168/06, 23040/06, 28239/06, 28285/06, 28670/06, 48861/06, 48870/06, 49367/06, 50371/06 and 50647/0 6 by Mitja SOFTIĆ and 9 others

against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 9 April 2010 as a C ommittee composed of:

Elisabet Fura , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Ineta Ziemele , judges, and S tanley 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 the settlement agreements signed by the parties,

Having regard to Protocol No. 14 bis ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are all Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia .

The applicant Mr Mitja Softić was represented before the Court by Ms Barica Zidar , a lawyer practising in Celje . Mr Rahman Dragonić was represented before the Court by Ms Jasmina Gričnik , a lawyer practicing in Žalec . Ms Mateja Drev and Mr Radovan Markovič were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek , a lawyer practising in Celje . Ms Marjetica Vranković and Ms Nika Nahtigal were represented before the Court by Ms Marjana Verstovšek , a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana . Ms Branka Bilič was represented before the Court by Ms Manja Krainer , a lawyer practicing in Radovljica . Mr Dušan Bončina was represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek , a lawyer practicing in Celje . Mr Stojan Dominko was represented before the Court by Matjaž Klep , a lawyer practicing in Celje . Ms Irena Nekrep , Ms Barbara Šmid and Mr Bojan Naumovič were represented before the Court by Mr Leon Benigar Tošič , a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana .

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

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant s , may be summarised as follows.

1 . 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.

2 . Subsequently, they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ) , and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ).

3 . Furthermore, some of the applicants were also parties to a separate set of proceedings which had terminated before 1 January 2007 .

4 . In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court under the 2006 Act.

The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

All 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.

Mr Stojan Dominko also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to an independent and impartial tribunal has been breached, since the representative of the opposite party to the proceedings latter became the president of one of the courts before which the case had been brought, though not the judge hearing the case.

THE LAW

I n the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2009 , they 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 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 a settlement with the State ' s Attorney ' s Office and that they wished to withdraw their application introduced before the Court. Moreover, also Mr Stojan Dominko informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State ' s Attorney ' s Office and that he wished to withdraw his application 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 reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant s do not wish to pursue their 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 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.

S tanley Naismith Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application No.

Applicant ' s Name

Year of Birth

Address

Date of Introduction

Date of domestic settlement and compensation paid to the applicant

Date of the applicant ' s withdrawal of the application

1.

16168/06

Mitja Softić

1972Rimske Toplice

22/03/2006

20/01/2010, 450,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 275,40 EUR for costs and expenses

25/01/2010

2.

23040/06

Rahman Dragonić

1955Velenje

08/05/2006

12/02/2010, 1440,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413,10 EUR for costs and expenses

18/02/2010

3.

28239/06

Mateja Drev

1971Velenje

12/06/2006

07/11/2008, 1.440,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 330,00 EUR for costs and expenses

02/10/2009

4.

28285/06

Marjetica Vranković

1946Ljubljana

20/06/2006

07/09/2009, 2.880,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 420,95 EUR for costs and expenses

07/09/2009

5.

28670/06

Nika Nahtigal

1969Kamnik

14/06/2006

30/06/2009, 540,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 293,27 EUR for costs and expenses

03/07/2009

6.

48861/06

Branka Bilič

1949Kranjska Gora

15/11/2006

31/08/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 550,80 EUR for costs and expenses

10/09/2009

7.

48870/06

Dušan Bončina

1950Gomilsko

16/11/2006

01/07/2009, 450,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 288,25 EUR for costs and expenses

01/07/2009

8.

49367/06

Stojan Dominko

1953Brežice

15/11/2006

11/09/2009, 2880,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413,12 EUR for costs and expenses

11/09/2009

9.

50371/06

Irena Nekrep

Barbara Å mid

Bojan Naumovič

1951

1957

1963Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

29/11/2006

29/08/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage;

14/09/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage, and 605,90 EUR for costs and expenses incurred together with Mr Naumovič ;

14/09/2009, 5000,00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage, and 605,90 EUR for costs and expenses incurred together with Ms Å mid

15/09/2009

10.

50647/06

Radovan Markovič

1957Ljubljana

06/12/2006

28/08/2009, 3.600 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 424,87 EUR for costs and expenses

02/09/2009