CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 34105/06 R. against Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   June 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 2 August 2006, Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants D.R., A.R. and R.R. are Slovenian nationals who were born on 1928, 1936 and 1966. They live in Nova Gorica. They had no representative before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 9 March 1994 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Nova Gorica District Court against a doctor, seeking compensation for damages resulting from the first applicant’s psychiatric treatment. On 13 January 2004 the first-instance court delivered a judgment, rejecting the applicants’ claim in whole. They appealed. On 2 February 2006 the Nova Gorica Higher Court rejected the appeal. They lodged a constitutional complaint. On 15 May 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected their complaint. THE LAW A.     Complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention The Court notes that a settlement was reached between the parties by which the Government acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and undertook to pay the applicants compensation with respect to non-pecuniary damages incurred as a result of the unreasonable length of proceeding. The Court however observes that the applicants still considers themselves to be victims as they claim to have also sustained pecuniary damage, for which they had not been compensated. As regards the latter, the Court notes that the losses claimed by the applicants have not been substantiated and that there is no causal link between the excessive length of the proceedings and the pecuniary damage alleged. Therefore and since the applicants have signed the aforementioned settlement agreement by which the State paid them compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage, which adequacy they does not call into question, the Court finds that they can no longer claim to be victims. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. B.     Remaining complaints The applicants also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness of the domestic proceedings. They further complained that the Courts failed to meet their positive obligations by dismissing their claims against the physician, who allegedly destroyed their family life. Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President