European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 15256/04, 16986/04, 19742/04, 27671/04
by Jernej BIZJAK and 3 others
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the written submissions of the parties,

Having regard to the friendly settlement offers and acceptances submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia. They were represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.

A. 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. As regards Mrs Marina Petek-Berdin, Mr Zvonko Gorenjak and Mr Danijel Jezernik, the proceedings terminated before 1 January 2007. As far as the applicants Mr Jernej Bizjak and Mr Dragan Mišič are concerned, the domestic proceedings in question terminated on 19 January 2007 and on 1 March 2007 respectively.

For details concerning each particular case see the attached table.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Journal, No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) became operational on 1 January 2007.

Section 25 lays down the following transitional rules in relation to applications already pending before the Court:

Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained prior to implementation of this Act

“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party has lodged a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney’s Office shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within four months of the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney’s Office within two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State Attorney’s Office. The State Attorney’s Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within four months at the latest...

(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney’s Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four months of the date on which the party submitted its proposal, the party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act. The party may bring an action within six months of receiving the State Attorney’s Office reply that the party’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney’s Office to decide to proceed with a settlement. Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the civil proceedings.

2. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

THE LAW

On 11 and 13 September 2007 the respondent Government were given notice of the applications.

Subsequently, on the dates indicated in the attached table, the State Attorney’s Office sent settlement proposals to the applicants under section 25 of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). In its proposals, the State Attorney’s Office acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offered to pay monetary compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses connected with the case to each applicant. The amount offered to the applicants by the State Attorney’s Office depended on the individual circumstances of each case (see attached table).

Further to the receipt of the applicants’ replies, the Government informed the Court that the applicants had accepted the settlement proposals.

On 13, 20 and 26 February 2008 each of the applicants informed the Court, in writing, that the cases had been settled at the domestic level and that they wished to withdraw their applications.

The Court observes that section 25 of the 2006 Act provides, firstly, that in cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and, secondly, where the party has lodged a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the 2006 Act became operational, the State Attorney’s Office shall offer the party a settlement in respect of just satisfaction within four months of the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure.

In that connection the Court notes that the domestic proceedings introduced by Mrs Marina Petek-Berdin, Mr Zvonko Gorenjak and Mr Danijel Jezernik were terminated before 1 January 2007 and the parties reached a settlement on the basis of section 25 of the 2006 Act. As regards the domestic proceedings instituted by Mr Jernej Bizjak and Mr Dragan Mišič, the Court notes that they terminated on 19 January 2007 and on 1 March 2007 respectively. Notwithstanding the fact that the domestic proceedings in question ended after the implementation of the 2006 Act, the Court notes that the Government and the applicants successfully reached a settlement and, as a result, the applicants decided to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.

Thus, 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 (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the applications to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

In these circumstances, the cases should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President