European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> AleS SESEL and Jure OREHOVEC v Slovenia - 30244/06 [2011] ECHR 1629 (27 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1629.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1629
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos.
30244/06 and 48392/06
by Aleš SEŠEL
and Jure OREHOVEC
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 September 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 20 July 2006 and 3 November 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant Mr Aleš Sešel is a Slovenian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Velenje. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan-Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Jure Orehovec is a Slovenian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Vransko. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. 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. Subsequently they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. The applicants 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.
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 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) 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