European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16044/06
TomaZ SETNIČAR and Adriana MUHLEISEN SETNIČAR
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 January 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 3 March 2006,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr TomaZ Setničar and Ms Adriana Muhleisen Setničar, are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1958 respectively and live in Ljubljana.

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

The applicants were parties 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”). 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.

On 14 October 2009 the President of the Section decided to communicate the application to the Government. The Court notes that subsequently the applicants 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 applicants, who were at the time represented by a lawyer, to confirm whether their case was resolved and to inform the Court whether they wish to withdraw the application. The applicants’ representative informed the Court that that he had lost contact with the applicants and that their legal representation was thus cancelled.

By a letter dated 5 July 2011 the applicants themselves were invited to provide the Court with a copy of the settlement agreement and to inform the Court whether they wish to withdraw the application. The applicants replied on 25 July 2011 but failed to submit the information requested by the Court.

Subsequently, by a letter dated 9 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants were again invited to submit the information requested. The applicants’ 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 applicants received this letter on 16 August 2011. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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