CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sBC655DD6 { width:197.58pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 72233/01 by STUDIO G-3 ZAGREB against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   June   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   E. Steiner, judges , and Mr S. N IELSEN , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2001, Having regard to the partial decision of 30 May 2002 and the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Studio G-3 Zagreb, is a company from Zagreb. It is represented before the Court by Mr Boris Kozjak, a lawyer practising in Virovitica, Croatia. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms Lidija Lukina-Karajković. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 July 1993 the applicant company was sued before the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ). The plaintiff, O.M., sought payment of certain lawyer’s fees. On 2 November 1993 the Zagreb Municipal Court held against the applicant company and awarded the fees claimed by the plaintiff. On 14 April 1994 the applicant company appealed against the judgment. On 11 April 1995 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) upheld the first instance judgment. On 20 June 1995 the applicant company filed a request for revision on points of law before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ). On 26 June 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the request. COMPLAINT The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW By letter of 17 February 2003 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant company 3,600 euros in full and final settlement of the applicant company’s claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included. On the same date the Court received the applicant representative’s letter informing the Court that the applicant company accepted the Government’s proposal and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and concludes that the matter has been resolved, cf. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention) and it accordingly considers that the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren N IELSEN   Christos R OZAKIS Deputy Registrar   President