CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 janvier 2011

.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 } .s54B80BE6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD7DE76AD { width:201.77pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s20842762 { height:95.1pt } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .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 } .s276DBA62 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s11961426 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11.5pt } .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 } .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 } THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 29022/06, 35506/06, 1101/07, 1803/07 and 1948/07 by Vida BUSER and others against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   January 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabet Fura, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, 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 applicants are all Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia. Mr Jože Vesel was not represented before the Court. Ms Vida Buser was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Mr Zdenko Lipovec was represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Ms Slavka Lešnik and Ms Marija Starc were represented before the Court by Ms J. Gričnik, a lawyer practicing in Žalec. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General. A.     The circumstances of the case The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007. 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 (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 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). It further notes that the applicants have since been in a position either to negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that should be unsuccessful, to lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no.   28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3   June   2008). The Court reiterates 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 ... (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the applications and that they should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore a case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Marialena Tsirli   Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar   President Annex     No. Application No. Applicant’s Name Year of Birth Address Date of Introduction Date of settlement proposal or agreement signed by the State Attorney 1. 29022/06 Vida BUSER 1971 Štore 26/06/2006 30/08/2010 2. 35506/06 Zdenko LIPOVEC 1956 Koper 25/05/2006 06/10/2010 3. 1101/07 Slavka LEŠNIK 1951 Ljubno ob Savinji 20/12/2006 23/09/2010 4. 1803/07 Jože VESEL 1947 Trzin 20/12/2006 23/08/2010 5. 1948/07 Marija STARC 1971 Šempeter v Savinjski dolini 20/12/2006 29/09/2010