European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 26142/05, 28459/05, 39003/05, 30557/06 and 31262/06
by Lea OGRIS and 4 others

against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,

Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
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 applications nos. 26142/05, 28459/05 and 39003/05 were introduced by the applicants Ms Ogris, Mr Verboten and Mr Jazbinšek respectively, who are Slovenian nationals and live in Slovenia (see appendix). The applicant Ms Ogris was represented before the Court by Mr Zlatko Lipej, a lawyer practising in Medvode. Mr Verboten and Mr Jazbinšek were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan-Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applications nos. 30557/06 and 31262/06 were introduced by the applicant company Zdravilišče Rogaška – Zdravstvo d.o.o., which was not represented before the Court by a lawyer.

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

A.  The circumstances of the case

The applicants and the applicant company (hereinafter referred to as “the applicants”) were parties to proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.

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 the 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 made 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 a period of 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 made its proposal, the party may lodge a claim [for just satisfaction] with the competent court under this Act. The party may lodge a claim 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 whether to proceed with 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

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).

THE LAW

In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the applications under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court, all the applicants received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposals under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage (see appendix). It further notes that on 19 February, 9 March, 23 February and 30 July 2009 respectively, 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 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 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