BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MatjaZ VRECAR and 3 others v Slovenia - 3402/06 [2010] ECHR 1031 (1 June 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1031.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1031 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos.
3402/06, 8141/06, 17289/06 and 17623/06
by MatjaZ VREČAR and
3 others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 June 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet
Fura,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele, judges,
and
Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia.
The applicants, Mr MatjaZ Vrečar, Ms Slavica Zlebnik and Mr Marko KriZnik, were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
The applicant, Mr Janez Martin Omerza, was represented by Ms Jazbinšek Goričan, a lawyer practising in Celje.
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 applicants, 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 Protection of the Right to a Trial Without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational.
Subsequently, they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).
The details concerning the cases 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
In 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 full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the above proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.
The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached settlements with the State's Attorney's Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications 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;
...
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 settlements reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants do not wish to pursue their applications. 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 cases 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 applications out of its list of cases.
Stanley Naismith Elisabet Fura
Deputy 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. |
3402/06 |
MatjaZ Vrečar |
1972 |
Velenje |
27/12/2005 |
30/09/2009 |
09/10/2009 |
1,373.76 |
|
2. |
8141/06 |
Slavica Zlebnik |
1962 |
Šoštanj |
17/02/2006 |
04/09/2009 |
16/09/2009 |
1,366.75 |
|
3. |
17289/06 |
Marko KriZnik |
1977 |
Loka pri Zumsu |
10/04/2006 |
11/01/2010 |
20/01/2010 |
735.85 |
|
4. |
17623/06 |
Janez Martin Omerza |
1946 |
Ljubljana |
07/04/2006 |
09/02/2010 |
11/02/2010 |
5,559.81 |