THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22050/06
by Dušan ŽELEZNIK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and Stanley Naismith, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Dušan Železnik, a Slovenian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Sežana. He had no representative before the Court. 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.
In 1993 the applicant instituted a labour dispute before the Ljubljana Labour Court (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani).
On 9 October 1997 the Ljubljana Labour Court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part and rejecting the remainder. The applicant lodged an appeal against the rejected part of the claim.
On 21 October 1999 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) rejected the appeal in part and remitted the remainder of the case for re-examination. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 5 December 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal on points of law and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 28 May 2001 the Ljubljana Labour Court issued a judgment. The applicant appealed.
On 12 June 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 14 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
On 7 November 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as unfounded.
Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Nezirović v. Slovenia decision (no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings had been excessively long and under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy in that regard.
By relying on Article 6 of the Convention, he also complained that the proceedings had been unfair.
THE LAW
1.  Complaint about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
The Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the application on 19 February 2009 under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court, the applicant received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposal of 9 July 2009 under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. Further to the receipt of the applicant’s reply, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted the settlement proposal.
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
...
(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 (Article 37 § 1 (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 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.
2.  Remaining complaints
As to the remaining complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention,
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
	Stanley Naismith	Josep Casadevall 
	Deputy Registrar	President