[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Silvija CIKA and others v Slovenia - 8284/06 [2011] ECHR 265 (25 January 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/265.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 265

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 8284/06, 19187/06, 20196/06, 27252/06, 49/07 and 2247/07
Silvija ČIKA and others
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the settlement agreements signed by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant Mr Danijel Soklič is a Slovenian and Australian national. All the other applicants are Slovenian nationals.

The applicants Ms Silvija Čika, Mr Danijel Soklič and Mr Simon Jazbec were represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Olga Omerzo-Tsigaridas was represented before the Court by Ms J. Jazbinšek-Goričan, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Mr Janko Sever, Ms Mara Pečnik and Mr Valentin Minov were represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

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

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, 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 appeals on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and in some cases also a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).

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.

THE LAW

In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2010, 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; 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 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) and (b) 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.

Marialena Tsirli Elisabet Fura
Deputy Registrar President

Appendix