CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 novembre 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 } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3760/07 by Jana MAZI against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   November 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2006, Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Jana Mazi, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Nova Gorica. She was represented before the Court by Mr   A. Žabjek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant was a party to three sets of proceedings. One of them was finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that in all three sets of proceedings also her rights under Articles 1, 5, 7, 8 and 17 of the Convention have been violated, without specifying these claims in any respect. After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that she wished to withdraw her application introduced before the Court. THE LAW 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 her 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   Ann Power-Forde Deputy Registrar   President