Res and Others v. Slovenia

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION [1]

Applications nos. 24615/06, 26716/06, 594/07, 11477/07 and 12559/07

by Jože REŠ and 4 others against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska, President [2] , Boštjan M. Zupančič, Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the Government's settlement proposals made to the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant Mr Miroslav Leskovšek is a Slovenian national living in Germany. All the other applicants are Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia.

The applicant Mr Jože Reš was represented before the Court by Mr A. Pipuš, a lawyer practicing in Maribor. Ms Silva Bračič was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Melitka Arh was represented before the Court by Mr B Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Mr Ešef Sadikovič was represented before the Court by Mr A. Razdrih, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana. Mr Miroslav Leskovšek was represented before the Court by Ms B. Zidar, a lawyer practicing in Celje.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.

For details concerning each particular case see the attached annex.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , Official Gazette, No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) became operational on 1 January 2007.

Section 25 lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court:

Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained prior to implementation of this Act

“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney's Office shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within four months after the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney's Office within two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State Attorney's Office. The State Attorney's Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within a period of four months at the latest.....

(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney's Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four months after the date on which the party filed its proposal, the party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act. The party may bring an action within six months after receiving the State Attorney's Office reply that the party's proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney's Office to decide to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard, thereby invoking Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

In the present cases the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2009 and 2010, all the applicants received the State Attorney's Office's settlement proposals 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 (see the attached annex).

By the settlement agreements signed by the State's Attorney's Office and the applicants, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicants the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The applicants accepted the amount as full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the above proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.

The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached settlements with the State's Attorney's Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court, since their complaints were subject to the settlement.

The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

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 do not wish to pursue their applications. The Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the applications 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

Annex

No.

Application No.

Applicant's Name

Year of Birth

Address

Date of Introduction

Date of withdrawal

1.

24615/06

Jože REŠ

1958

Radizel

31/05/2006

07/01/2010

2.

26716/06

Silva BRAČIČ

1957

Slovenske Konjice

09/06/2006

04/09/2009

3.

594/07

Melitka ARH

1974

Gorica pri Slivnici

18/12/2006

01/02/2011

4.

11477/07

Ešef SADIKOVIČ

1959

Ljubljana

06/03/2007

19/02/2010

5.

12559/07

Miroslav LESKOVŠEK

1946

München

15/03/2007

12/02/2010

[1] Rectified on 28 June 2011, under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court.

[2] Rectified on 28 June 2011: presidency of the Committee.