European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no 26575/06
Draga STOPINSEK
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 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 20 June 2006,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Ms Draga Stopinsek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Celje. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

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.

On 5 May 2011 the President of the Section decided to communicate the application to the Government. The Court notes that subsequently the applicant received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage.

As a result, the Registry invited the applicant to confirm whether her case was resolved and to inform the Court whether she wishes to withdraw the application. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

Subsequently, by a letter dated 17 October 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was again invited to submit the information requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 24 October 2011. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

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