CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11773/09 Habib DEDIČ and Esmina DEDIČ against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2009, Having regard to the applicants’ withdrawal of the application, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants, Mr Habib Dedič and Ms Esmina Dedič, are Slovenian nationals, who were born in 1951 and 1957 respectively and live in Koper. They were represented before the Court by Mr P. Kos, a lawyer practising in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants were parties to proceedings which were finally resolved before 1 January 2007, when the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay became operational. The proceedings subsequently continued before the Supreme and the Constitutional Court. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings. After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their application introduced before the Court. THE LAW The Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. 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