European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 28748/06 and 4633/07
Damir VAJDIČ against Slovenia
and Jakob SKUBIC against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 August 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 6 June and 20 December 2006 respectively,

Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants are Slovenian nationals.

The applicant Mr Damir Vajdič (application no. 28148/06) was born in 1982 and lives in Buče. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Mikša, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Mr Jakob Skubic (application no. 4633/07) was born in 1956 and lives in Škofljica. He was represented before the Court by Čeferin law firm from Grosuplje.

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved 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. They subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. The applicant Mr Skubic also lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. They complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. The applicant Mr Jakob Skubic further complained about the unfairness of the proceedings.

After the Government had been given notice of the applications, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.

THE LAW

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 wish to withdraw their applications. 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) 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.

Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President