CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sD5534522 { width:4.3pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 15412/05 by Nandi HERCOG against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   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 application lodged on 15 April 2005, Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nandi Hercog, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Prevorje. He was represented before the Court by Mr   B.   Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 28 September 1999 the applicant had an accident at work. Subsequently, he instituted two sets of proceedings before the Celje District Court ( Okrožno sodišče v Celju ), seeking non-pecuniary damage. The first set of proceedings against Z.M. was instituted on 18 January 2000 and the second one against C., the applicant’s employer, on 16   November   2001. On 14 January 2002 the Celje District Court joined both sets of proceedings. On 28 February 2005 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. The applicant and C. appealed. On 15 November 2006 the Celje Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Celju ) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and C.’s appeal in whole. As a result, a part of the claim was remitted for re-examination. On 11 January 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ) in connection with the part of the Celje Higher Court judgment which had rejected his appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant 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 The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that the applicant and the State Attorney’s Office had reached a friendly settlement. By the settlement agreement signed by the State Attorney’s Office and the applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicant 900 euros (EUR) for the damage sustained and EUR 108 for costs and expenses incurred. The applicant 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. On 31 March 2010 the applicant informed the Court that the case had been settled at the domestic level and that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court. The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant does not wish to pursue his 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 case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Marialena Tsirli   Elisabet Fura   Deputy Registrar President