European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Lidija LAZAR ANDREJASIC v Slovenia - 151/07 [2011] ECHR 2031 (22 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2031.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2031
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
151/07
by Lidija LAZAR ANDREJAŠIČ
against
Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ann
Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Lidija Lazar Andrejašič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Kranj. She was represented before the Court by Mr D. Pavlin, a lawyer practising in Kranj. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant was a party to proceedings which were finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). She 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 application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that she wished to withdraw her application 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 applicant wishes to withdraw her 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 case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde
Deputy
Registrar President