by Zmago GLUNEC
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 March 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Zmago Glunec, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Šentilj. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Jančič, a commercialist from Maribor. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. On 22 July 1992 the applicant instituted, together with several other persons, civil proceedings against their employer, a company T.M., complaining, inter alia, about their salary.
2. The proceedings 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.
3. The applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče). The proceedings terminated on 5 November 2007, when the decision of the Constitutional Court of 19 October 2007 was served on the applicant.
4. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies in this respect.
5. The Court notes that after the Government had been given notice of the application on 27 October 2008, the applicant received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposal of 13 February 2009, acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage sustained.
6. On 11 May 2009 the applicant informed the Court that he accepted the settlement proposed by the Government and that he therefore wished to withdraw the application before the Court.
7. 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.”
8. 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 does not wish further to pursue his 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 application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall