European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 3577/06, 7731/06, 8031/06, 8060/06, 8145/06, 8149/06 and by Matej ORAČ and 5 Others (see attached table)
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 31 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 30 November 2005, 27 December 2005, 27 January 2006, 30 January 2006, 1 February 2006 and 17 February 2006,

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.

Mr Orač, Ms BoZič, Mr Napast and Ms Lugonjič were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan - Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

Mr Vahen and Mr Sovinc were represented by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

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

A.  The circumstances of the case

The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007. The relevant details concerning each particular case are indicated in 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 Gazette, 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 had filed 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 after 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 after the date on which the party filed its proposal, the party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act. The party may bring an action within six months after 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 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 LAW

On 10 July 2008 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 the 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 October, 21 October, 28 October, 26 November, 1 December and 5 December 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 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