BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Darja GASPARIC v Slovenia - 28068/08 [2011] ECHR 2030 (22 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2030.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2030 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
28068/08
by Darja GAŠPARIČ
against
Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ann
Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2008,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Darja Gašparič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Maribor. She was represented before the Court by Mr N. Grgurevič, a lawyer practising in Maribor. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant was a party to proceedings which were finally resolved 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. She subsequently lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the amendments to the Denationalisation Act and the manner in which the domestic authorities had applied these amendments in the framework of denationalisation proceedings had deprived her of her family’s property in a discriminatory way, since she had been denied the restitution of property on the ground of her relative’s Croatian nationality. According to her, this also amounted to a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.
After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that she wished to withdraw her application introduced before the Court in its entirety.
THE LAW
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 wishes to withdraw 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President