Bojana VLAHOVIC and Others v Slovenia - 33727/03 [2010] ECHR 1529 (21 September 2010)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Bojana VLAHOVIC and Others v Slovenia - 33727/03 [2010] ECHR 1529 (21 September 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1529.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1529 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 33727/03, 30922/06, 31550/06, 35828/06, 35855/06, 41345/06 by Bojana VLAHOVIČ and Others against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of: Elisabet Fura, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having regard to the settlement agreements signed by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia. The applicants Ms Bojana Vlahovič and Mr Edvard Rajh were represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicants Ms Andreja Dobrotinšek, Mr Anton Mernik and Mr Ibrahim DZogić were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Ms Dušica Pregrad Podbevšek was represented by the Čeferin lawyers practising in Grosuplje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved ( pravnomočno končan postopek ) 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. Subsequently, they lodged appeals on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ). The applicant Ms Dušica Pregrad Podbevšek also lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ). The details concerning the cases are indicated in the attached table. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. THE LAW I n the present cases, the Court notes that, after the applications had been communicated to the Government for observations on admissibility and merits , the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants. 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. 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; or (b) the matter has been resolved; ... 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 settlements reached between the parties the matters have been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants do not wish to pursue their applications. It 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) and (b) 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. Santiago Quesada Elisabet Fura Registrar President Appendix No. Application No. Applicant's Name Year of Birth Address Date of Introduction Date of settlement proposal or agreement signed by the State Attorney Date of the applicant's withdrawal of the application Amount of compensation in euros 1. 33727/03 Bojana VLAHOVIČ Velenje 30/09/2003 12/11/2008 18/11/2008 820.79 2. 30922/06 Edvard RAJH Dobje 12/07/2006 21/09/2009 24/09/2009 823.25 3. 31550/06 Andreja DOBROTINŠEK Vojnik 20/07/2006 05/11/2009 17/11/2009 825.84 4. 35828/06 Anton MERNIK Slovenska Bistrica 22/08/2006 03/11/2009 09/11/2009 4,760.90 5. 35855/06 Ibrahim DZOGIĆ Velenje 22/08/2006 29/10/2009 10/11/2009 2,224.45 6. 41345/06 Dušica PREGRAD PODBEVŠEK Ljubljana 28/09/2006 09/10/2009 11/11/2009 815.40 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1529.html