CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 2011

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s2E2EB3D2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43151/05 by Damijan ŠTEKOVIČ against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27   September 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 application lodged on 21 November 2005, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Damijan Štekovič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Žalec. 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. On 29 December 2000 the applicant instituted the civil proceedings before the Celje District Court. The proceedings were finally resolved with the judgment of the Celje Higher Court of 19 January 2007, that is, less than three months after the implementation of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which delivered its judgment on 15 May 2008. The judgment was served on the applicant on 20 June 2008. 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 they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant. 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 the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The applicant accepted the amount as a full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of these complaints. On 7 June 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office 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 wishes to withdraw 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) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Stephen Phillips   Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar   President