CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE188E4CB { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse; } .s7AF4627 { height:62.6pt } .sCB83CF12 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB2BFF4F9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s58ED8ED7 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sBC7DE884 { height:80.75pt } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s472564EC { height:73.2pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3A46B2BE { width:43.5pt; display:inline-block } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77CD243A { height:116.2pt } .sBC7283FA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s451E1002 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB2A49B64 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s734E86C9 { height:117pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s16C0E089 { height:78.85pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD525B004 { height:111.5pt } .sD422089D { height:86.3pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sDA9E29FC { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:0 } .sF4CA52D5 { margin-top:-15.5pt; margin-left:53.15pt; position:absolute } .s1F2AD88E { height:68.85pt } THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 712/04, 17863/04, 24197/04, 13294/05, 25242/05, 38979/05, 40774/05 and 45029/05 against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23   June   2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Elisabet Fura-Sandström,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, 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 applicant Ms Vera Momić did not have a representative before the Court. The applicants Mr Branko Borinc, Mr Bajro Hodžić, Ms Dragica Repas and Ms Zdenka Gombač were represented before the Court by Ms   Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Ms Marjetka Kušar was represented before the Court by Mr Roman Završek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The applicants Ms Alenka Planinc and Mr Janez Kotnik were represented before the Court by Ms   Barica Zidar, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     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. 2.     Subsequently, they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ), and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ). 3.     In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court under the 2006 Act. The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table. COMPLAINTS All 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 In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications on 26 February 2009, they 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 a 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 a settlement with the State’s Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their application 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 settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants do not wish to pursue their application. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application 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   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President           Appendix   No. Application   no. Applicant (name, date of birth and place of residence) Date of lodging   of the application   Subject matter of domestic proceedings   Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings     Levels of jurisdiction   Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant Date of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application 1. 712/04 Branko BORINC 19/12/2003     Compensation for damage sustained during medical treatment From 20/12/1999 (Celje District Court) until 29/11/2007 (Supreme Court) Three levels of jurisdiction   On 23/02/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which rejected the appeal.         03/02/2009, 1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 285.00 EUR for costs and expenses 09/02/2009         2. 17863/04 Bajro HODŽIĆ 29/04/2004 Compensation for damage sustained in an accident at work From 15/07/1996 (Celje District Court) until 29/11/2007 (Supreme Court) Three levels of jurisdiction   On 12/10/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which dismissed the appeal.   27/01/2009, 2,880.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 432.13 EUR for costs and expenses 05/02/2009           3.           24197/04                 Dragica REPAS           23/06/2004         Compensation for damage sustained in a car accident   From 21/09/1998 (Celje District Court). The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 20/09/2006. The proceedings are still pending.           Three levels of jurisdiction       On 27/02/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which rejected the appeal.       12/02/2009, 1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 428.06 EUR for costs and expenses           19/02/2009 No. Application   no. Applicant (name, date of birth and place of residence) Date of lodging   of the application   Subject matter of domestic proceedings   Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings     Levels of jurisdiction   Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant Date of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application             4.                     13294/05               Marjetka KUŠAR               01/04/2005               Inheritance dispute   From 08/04/2008 (Ljubljana District Court). The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court on 16/08/2006. The proceedings are still pending.           Five instances and three levels of jurisdiction.           No acceleratory remedies used.       02/03/2009, 1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and   413.12 EUR for costs and expenses             02/03/2009         5.         25242/05         Vera MOMIĆ         27/06/2005     Labour dispute concerning the applicant’s salary   From 03/04/1996 (Ljubljana Labour and Social Court) until 19/11/2007 (Supreme Court)       Seven instances and three levels of jurisdiction       No acceleratory remedies used.           04/03/2009, 1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage       09/03/2009   No. Application   no. Applicant (name, date of birth and place of residence) Date of lodging   of the application   Subject matter of domestic proceedings   Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings     Levels of jurisdiction   Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant Date of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application         6.         38979/05         Alenka PLANINC         06/10/2005       Compensation for damage sustained during medical treatment   From 07/10/1994 (Ljubljana District Court) until 12/09/2007 (Constitutional Court)         Seven instances and four levels of jurisdiction           No acceleratory remedies used.       12/02/2009, 1,800.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 423.68 EUR for costs and expenses         17/02/2009           7.           40774/05           Janez KOTNIK           19/10/2005     Compensation for damage sustained during military service.         From 16/07/1997 (Trbovlje Local Court) until 08/10/2007 (Supreme Court)         Seven instances and three levels of jurisdiction         No acceleratory remedies used.     11/02/2009, 1,237.50 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 275.41 EUR for costs and expenses         16/02/2009         8.         45029/05         Zdenka GOMBAČ         18/11/2005     Compensation for damage sustained in a store.   From 20/11/1998 (Celje District Court) until 14/01/2008. (Supreme Court)       Three levels of jurisdiction       No acceleratory remedies used.     19/01/2009, 1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 429.30 EUR for costs and expenses         23/01/2009