CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 janvier 2012

.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 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 54180/08 Saša SLAVEC against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   January 2012 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 11 November 2008, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Saša Slavec, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Golnik. He was represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Jarkovič, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant was a party to proceedings which were 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”). He subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. 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. The applicant further complained under Article 6 that the domestic proceedings had been unfair and under Article   1   of   Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts’ decisions rejecting his claims amounted to a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Finally, the applicant complained that the Constitutional Court had not given reasons for its decision. After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant, acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant subsequently 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 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 his application in its entirety. 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