European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 25835/06, 27322/06 and 36430/06
Darko KRAJNC and others
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 November 2010 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia.

The applicant Mr Darko Krajnc was represented before the Court by Mr Dragutin Mikša, a lawyer practising in Celje.

The applicant Ms Ana Marija Grabnar was represented before the Court by Mr Andrej Zabjek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.

The applicant Mr Marko Abram was represented before the Court by Ms Irma Rupnik Prelovec, a lawyer practising in Idrija.

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

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant Mr Marko Abram was a party in 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, he lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).

The applicants Mr Darko Krajnc and Ms Ana Marija Grabnar were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act.

The details concerning the cases are indicated in the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

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

The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letters dated 22 February 2010, 25 March 2010 and 15 April 2010, respectively, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 22 January 2010, 24 February 2010 and on 15 January 2010, respectively, and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representatives’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicants’ representatives received these letters on 26 February 2010, 29 March 2010 and on 30 April 2010, respectively. However, no response has been received.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the cases.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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.

Marialena Tsirli Elisabet Fura
Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX