European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Joze KAVSEK v Slovenia - 5167/07 [2011] ECHR 2033 (22 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2033.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2033
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
5167/07
by JoZe KAVŠEK
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 29 December 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr JoZe Kavšek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana. He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Mazi, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant was a party to proceedings which were terminated 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. The applicant complained about the excessive length of proceedings and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. To this end, he invoked Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 17 of the Convention.
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 he had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that he wished to withdraw his 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 his 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