[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tomo ROZEJ and Others v Slovenia - 15875/06 [2011] ECHR 1142 (28 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1142.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1142

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 15875/06, 17046/06, 28131/06, 30519/06 and 30538/06

by Tomo ROZEJ and Others

against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovenian nationals.

The applicant Mr Tomo RoZej (application no.15875/06) was born in 1962 and lives in Dol pri Hrastniku. The applicant Ms Ivanka Medenjak (application no. 17046/06) was born in 1964 and lives in Vojnik. The applicant Mr Duško Hajder (application no. 28131/06) was born in 1973 and lives in Rogaška Slatina. The applicant Mr Milan Rakun (application no. 30519/06) was born in 1966 and lives in Prebold. The applicant Mr JoZe Černelč (application no. 30538/06) was born in 1972 and lives in Bistrica ob Sotli. They were represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants were parties to proceedings which were finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). The applicant Mr Hajder was also a party to another separate set of pending proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

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, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants.

By the settlement agreements signed by the State 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 settlements with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.

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 wish to withdraw 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) 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.

Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President