[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Branko BORINC & Ors v Slovenia - 712/04 [2009] ECHR 1155 (23 June 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1155.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1155

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 712/04, 17863/04, 24197/04, 13294/05, 25242/05, 38979/05, 40774/05 and 45029/05
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 June 2009 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 Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having regard to the settlement agreements signed by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia.

The applicant Ms Vera Momić did not have a representative before the Court. The applicants Mr Branko Borinc, Mr Bajro HodZić, Ms Dragica Repas and Ms Zdenka Gombač were represented before the Court by Ms Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant Ms Marjetka Kušar was represented before the Court by Mr Roman Završek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The applicants Ms Alenka Planinc and Mr Janez Kotnik were represented before the Court by Ms Barica Zidar, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1.  The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved (pravnomočno končan postopek) before 1 January 2007, that is, before the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial Without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational.

2.  Subsequently, they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).

3.  In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court under the 2006 Act.

The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

All the applicants 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

In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications on 26 February 2009, they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants.

By the settlement agreements signed by the State’s Attorney’s Office and the applicants, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicants the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The applicants accepted the 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.

The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State’s Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their 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 applicants do not wish to pursue their 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President

Appendix

No.	Application no.	Applicant (name, date of birth and place of residence)	Date of lodging of the application	Subject matter of domestic proceedings	Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings	Levels of jurisdiction	Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court	Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant	Date of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application
1.	712/04	Branko BORINC	19/12/2003	Compensation for damage sustained during medical treatment	From 20/12/1999 (Celje District Court) until 29/11/2007 (Supreme Court)	Three levels of jurisdiction	On 23/02/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which rejected the appeal.	03/02/2009, 1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 285.00 EUR for costs and expenses	09/02/2009
2.	17863/04	Bajro HODZIĆ	29/04/2004	Compensation for damage sustained in an accident at work	From 15/07/1996 (Celje District Court) until 29/11/2007 (Supreme Court)	Three levels of jurisdiction	On 12/10/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which dismissed the appeal.	27/01/2009, 2,880.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 432.13 EUR for costs and expenses	05/02/2009
3.	24197/04	Dragica REPAS	23/06/2004	Compensation for damage sustained in a car accident	From 21/09/1998 (Celje District Court). The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 20/09/2006. The proceedings are still pending.	Three levels of jurisdiction	On 27/02/2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court, which rejected the appeal.	12/02/2009, 1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 428.06 EUR for costs and expenses	19/02/2009
No.	Application no.	Applicant (name, date of birth and place of residence)	Date of lodging of the application	Subject matter of domestic proceedings	Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings	Levels of jurisdiction	Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court	Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant	Date of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application
4.	13294/05	Marjetka KUŠAR	01/04/2005	Inheritance dispute	From 08/04/2008 (Ljubljana District Court). The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court on 16/08/2006. The proceedings are still pending.	Five instances and three levels of jurisdiction.	No acceleratory remedies used.	02/03/2009, 1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413.12 EUR for costs and expenses	02/03/2009
5.	25242/05	Vera MOMIĆ	27/06/2005	Labour dispute concerning the applicant’s salary	From 03/04/1996 (Ljubljana Labour and Social Court) until 19/11/2007 (Supreme Court)	Seven instances and three levels of jurisdiction	No acceleratory remedies used.	04/03/2009, 1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage	09/03/2009

No.	Application no.	Applicant (name, date of birth and place of residence)	Date of lodging of the application	Subject matter of domestic proceedings	Relevant period for calculating the length of the proceedings	Levels of jurisdiction	Use of acceleratory remedies in the proceedings before the Supreme Court	Date of friendly settlement and compensation paid to the applicant	Date of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application
6.	38979/05	Alenka PLANINC	06/10/2005	Compensation for damage sustained during medical treatment	From 07/10/1994 (Ljubljana District Court) until 12/09/2007 (Constitutional Court)	Seven instances and four levels of jurisdiction	No acceleratory remedies used.	12/02/2009, 1,800.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 423.68 EUR for costs and expenses	17/02/2009
7.	40774/05	Janez KOTNIK	19/10/2005	Compensation for damage sustained during military service.	From 16/07/1997 (Trbovlje Local Court) until 08/10/2007 (Supreme Court)	Seven instances and three levels of jurisdiction	No acceleratory remedies used.	11/02/2009, 1,237.50 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 275.41 EUR for costs and expenses	16/02/2009
8.	45029/05	Zdenka GOMBAČ	18/11/2005	Compensation for damage sustained in a store.	From 20/11/1998 (Celje District Court) until 14/01/2008. (Supreme Court)	Three levels of jurisdiction	No acceleratory remedies used.	19/01/2009, 1,440.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 429.30 EUR for costs and expenses	23/01/2009