CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2AD579 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4D781175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .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. 23328/06 Silvester VRABEC against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2   October 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 15 May 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Silvester Vrabec, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Štore He was represented before the Court by Mr   I. Marovt, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 2 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celej District Court. On 21 May 2000 the first-instance judgment was rendered. The applicant appealed. On 24 June 2005 the Celje Higher Court upheld the appeal in part and remitted the case for re-examination. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the final part of the judgment. On 29 March 2007, following an out-of-court settlement the first-instance   court issued a decision on termination of proceedings. Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Kešelj and 6   Others   v.   Slovenia decision (nos. 20674/05, 20680/05, 28380/05, 28441/05, 38861/05, 39198/05 and 44915/05, 19 May 2009). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of an effective 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 under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. It further notes that the applicant, being dissatisfied with the amount offered, subsequently lodged a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act. The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no.   28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3   June   2008, and Kešelj and 6 others v. Slovenia, cited above). The Court reiterates Article   37 of the Convention, which in the relevant part reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the application and it should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37   §   1   (c). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore the case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course. 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