CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 février 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 } .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 } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 19087/04 and 28592/05 by Log d.o.o. and Vladimir Zaluberšek against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   February   2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 13 May 2004 and 5   July 2005 respectively, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant company Log d.o.o. is a public company whose registered office is in Ravne na Koroškem. It was represented before the Court by Mr   Ervin Dokič, a lawyer practising in Piran. The applicant Mr Vladimir Zaluberšek is a Slovenian national. He was born in 1949 and lives in Prevalje. He was not represented before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Both applicants were parties to proceedings which terminated 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. The applicant Mr Vladimir Zaluberšek was also a party to another set of proceedings, which terminated on 4 November 2008. 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 applicant company Log d.o.o. also complained that the domestic proceedings had not been fair and that its case had been treated discriminatorily. The applicant Mr Vladimir Zaluberšek also complained about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings. THE LAW In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the applications under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court, 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. Subsequently, the Registry invited the applicants to confirm whether their cases were resolved and to inform the Court whether they wish to withdraw the applications. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters dated 8 February 2010 and 1 December 2009, respectively, sent by registered post, the applicants were again invited to submit the information requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicants received these letters on 11   February   2010 and on 17 December 2009, respectively. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Stephen Phillips   Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President