CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 avril 2013

.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 } .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 } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D7F0777 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6ADF1EA6 { width:167.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 46983/09 Tatjana MALEC against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 August 2009, Having regard to the settlement reached at the domestic level, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Tatjana Malec, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant was a party to denationalisation proceedings, which were finally resolved before 1 January 2007, when the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational, but have afterwards continued before the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. 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, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had sent a settlement proposal to the applicant as regards the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she wished to withdraw her complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. 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 in the part concerning her complaints about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. 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 application as far as it concerns the above complaints out of the list in accordance with Article   37   § 1 (a) of the Convention. B.     Remaining complaints The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the proceedings were unfair since she did not receive a fair compensation for the nationalised property which, according to her, was in breach of her property rights. She further complained that the domestic courts were arbitrary and applied the domestic law in a discriminatory manner (Article 14 in substance). 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 Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases with regard to the complaints   under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Stephen Phillips   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President