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 >> Mustafa VELADZIC and Others v Slovenia - 18749/04 [2011] ECHR 1143 (28 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1143.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1143 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
18749/04
by Mustafa VELADZIĆ 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 application lodged on 11 May 2004,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mustafa VeladZić is a Slovenian national who was born in 1948 and lives in DomZale (Slovenia). The applicant Mr Ramiz VeladZić is a Bosnian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bihać (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The applicant Mr Hamdija Ljubijankić is a Bosnian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Osredak (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Mr Ramiz VeladZić and Mr Hamdija Ljubijankić were represented before the Court by Mr Mustafa VeladZić. Mr Mustafa VeladZić was represented before the Court by Mr M. Merkelj, a lawyer practising in DomZale.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicants were parties to several sets of proceedings. One of them was finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). They complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. They further complained that the domestic proceedings were unfair and that the domestic courts were biased.
In the present case, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their application introduced before the Court.
THE LAW
The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants wish to withdraw 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 out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President