European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 16168/06, 23040/06, 28239/06, 28285/06, 28670/06, 48861/06, 48870/06, 49367/06, 50371/06 and 50647/06
by Mitja SOFTIĆ and 9 others

against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having regard to the settlement agreements signed by the parties,

Having regard to Protocol No. 14 bis,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are all Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia.

The applicant Mr Mitja Softić was represented before the Court by Ms Barica Zidar, a lawyer practising in Celje. Mr Rahman Dragonić was represented before the Court by Ms Jasmina Gričnik, a lawyer practicing in Zalec. Ms Mateja Drev and Mr Radovan Markovič were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Ms Marjetica Vranković and Ms Nika Nahtigal were represented before the Court by Ms Marjana Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana. Ms Branka Bilič was represented before the Court by Ms Manja Krainer, a lawyer practicing in Radovljica. Mr Dušan Bončina was represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Mr Stojan Dominko was represented before the Court by MatjaZ Klep, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Irena Nekrep, Ms Barbara Šmid and Mr Bojan Naumovič were represented before the Court by Mr Leon Benigar Tošič, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana.

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

The circumstances of the case

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

1.  The applicants were parties to 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.

2.  Subsequently, they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).

3.  Furthermore, some of the applicants were also parties to a separate set of proceedings which had terminated before 1 January 2007.

4.  In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court under the 2006 Act.

The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

All 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.

Mr Stojan Dominko also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to an independent and impartial tribunal has been breached, since the representative of the opposite party to the proceedings latter became the president of one of the courts before which the case had been brought, though not the judge hearing the case.

THE LAW

In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2009, they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants.

By the settlement agreements signed by the State's Attorney's Office and the applicants, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicants the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The applicants accepted the amount as a full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the above proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.

The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that they wished to withdraw their application introduced before the Court. Moreover, also Mr Stojan Dominko informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court.

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 settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants do not wish to pursue their 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 cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

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

Stanley Naismith Elisabet Fura
Deputy Registrar President

Appendix