THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 7352/04, 14590/04, 34469/04, 1453/05 and 35036/05 by Dejan ŠPEGLIČ and 4 Others 
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the written submissions of the parties,
Having regard to the friendly settlement offers and acceptances submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia. Mr Dejan Špeglič was represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan-Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Ms Eva Štraus and Mr Benjamin Mlačnik were represented before the Court by Boštjan Vrstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Mr Stjepan Čulig was represented before the Court by Matjaž Čebular, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana. Mr Leopold Kos did not have a representative before the Court. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007. The relevant details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.
Mr Čulig was a party to civil proceedings concerning separation of common property further to separation from his partner. Since during the proceedings he proposed further evidence in his favour after the time limits for such procedural act had already expired, the first-instance court did not examine that evidence. The second-instance court upheld the decision of the first instance court.
B.  Relevant domestic law
The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Gazette, No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) became operational on 1 January 2007.
Section 25 lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court:
Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained prior to implementation of this Act
“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney’s Office shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within four months after the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney’s Office within two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State Attorney’s Office. The State Attorney’s Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within a period of four months at the latest.....
(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney’s Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four months after the date on which the party filed its proposal, the party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act. The party may bring an action within six months after receiving the State Attorney’s Office reply that the party’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney’s Office to decide to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.”
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings. In addition, Mr Čulig claimed that since in the proceedings he was not allowed to adduce further evidence in his favour, his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning fair trial were breached.
2.  They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
3.  Finally, Mr Čulig claimed that the decision of the courts not to take further evidence in his favour resulted in violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 5 of Protocol 7 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 13 September 2007, 18 September 2007 and 3 July 2008, respectively, the respondent Government were given notice of the applications.
Subsequently, on the dates indicated in the attachedtable, the State Attorney’s Office sent settlement proposals to the applicants under section 25 of the . In its proposals, the State Attorney’s Office acknowledged the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and «StateNameEnglish»offered to pay monetary compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses connected with the case to each applicant. The amount offered to the applicants by the State Attorney’s Office depended on the individual circumstances of each case (see attached table).
Further to the receipt of the applicants’ replies, the Government informed the Court that the applicants had accepted the settlement proposals.
On 11 March, 13 August, 19 September, 6 October and 21 November 2008 each of applicants informed the Court, in writing, that the cases had been settled at the domestic level and that they wished to withdraw their applications.
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 settlements reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicants do not wish to pursue their applications (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the applications to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In these circumstances, the ases should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
	Santiago Quesada	
	Registrar	President

No.	App. No.	Name	
Date of lodging
of the application
	Date of introduction of domestic proceedings	Date of final decision	Relevant period	Date of the State Attorney’s settlement proposal	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total Settlement Figure	
1.	7352/04	Dejan ŠPEGLIČ	19 January 2004 	18 December 1997 	18 September 2003
(served on 3 December 2003)	six years at
three levels of jurisdiction	15 November 2007	450 €	286.75 €	736.75 €	
2.	14590/04	Leopold KOS	9 April 2004	27 July 1992	14 May 2004
(served on 12 August 2004
at the earliest) 	twelve years and one month at
two levels of jurisdiction	12 November 2007	2,880 €	/	2,880 €	
3.	34469/04	Stjepan ČULIG	3 September 2004 	21 January 1997 	19 February 2004
(served on 17 March 2004)	seven years and two months at
five instances and three levels of jurisdiction	10 January 2008	450 €	275.40 €	725.40 €	
4.	1453/05	Eva ŠTRAUS	8 December 2004	15 December 1997 	14 April 2004
(served on 15 June 2004)	six years and six months at
two levels of jurisdiction	15 September 2008	1,800 €	426.47 €	2,226.47 €	
5	35036/05	Benjamin MLAČNIK 	13 September 2005 	15 February 2000 	2 March 2005
(served on 29 March 2005)	five years and one month at
two levels of jurisdiction	26 September 2008	1,440 €	424.47 €	1,864.47 €