THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5582/03
by Nada LIPOVŠEK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	Josep Casadevall, President,
	Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
	Boštjan M. Zupančič,
	Alvina Gyulumyan,
	Ineta Ziemele,
	Luis López Guerra,
	Ann Power, judges,
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 February 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having regard to the settlement agreement signed by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nada Lipovšek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Celje. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan - Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Insurance Company ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained in a car accident.
During the proceedings a hearing was held and the parties filed written submissions.
On 13 May 2003 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part.
Further to the applicant's appeal of 25 July 2003, the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju), on 2 February 2005, changed the first-instance court's judgment.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was partly upheld by the Supreme Court on 22 November 2007. The latter further increased the damages awarded to the applicant.
The Supreme Court's judgment was served on the applicant on 3 January 2008.
In the meantime, on 2 March 2007, the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal (nadzorstvena pritožba) with the Celje District Court relaying on the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Journal, No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) which became operational on 1 January 2007. On 23 March 2007 the president of that court rejected the supervisory appeal as inadmissible finding that the first-instance proceedings had already terminated. The applicant then lodged a motion for a deadline (rokovni predlog), which was likewise rejected as inadmissible by the president of the Celje Higher Court on 23 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
On 4 June 2008 the President of the Chamber decided that the case should be communicated to the Government for observations on its admissibility and merits, requesting them to specifically address the issue concerning the availability of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's length of proceedings' complaint in view of the 2006 Act.
On 26 September 2008 the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant.
By the settlement agreement signed by the State's Attorney's Office and the applicant on 28 October and 4 November 2008 respectively, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicant 1,080 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 281,10 for costs and expenses. The applicant accepted the mentioned amount as a full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the above proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.
On 7 November 2008 the applicant informed the Court that she had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that she wished to withdraw her application introduced before the Court.
The Court recalls 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
(a)  the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b)  the matter has been resolved;
...
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.”
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 does not wish to pursue her application. 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 of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Santiago Quesada	Josep Casadevall
	Registrar	President