[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Marjan VRBEK v Slovenia - 8413/03 [2009] ECHR 903 (19 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/903.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 903

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

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 8413/03, 14184/03, 31194/03, 37189/03
by Marjan VRBEK
and 3 others
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra, 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. They were represented before the Court by Mrs Mateja Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The respondent 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.

The applicants were parties to different sets of civil proceedings which were “finally resolved” (pravnomočno končan postopek) before 1 January 2007.

Subsequently they lodged appeals on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). Mr Ajšić challenged the Supreme Court’s decision in his case before the Constitutional Court.

For details concerning each particular case see the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.

THE LAW

On 4 June 2008 the President of the Chamber decided that the applications nos. 31194/03 and 37189/03 should be communicated to the Government for observations on their admissibility and merits. On 16 October 2008 the applications nos. 8413/03 and 14184/03 were also communicated to the Government for observations on their admissibility and merits.

Subsequently the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made settlement proposals to 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 monetary compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses connected with the case. The amount offered to the applicants by the State Attorney’s Office depended on the individual circumstances of each case (see the attached table).

On 10 and 12 November 2008 and 3 and 5 February 2009, Mr Hernaus, Mr Jovanovič, Mr Ajšić and Mr Vrbek, respectively, informed the Court, in writing, that the case 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. 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 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

Annex