[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Boris RUDOLF and others v Slovenia - 2541/07 [2011] ECHR 1928 (11 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1928.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1928

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 2541/07 and 9847/07
Boris RUDOLF and others against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 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 lodged on 29 December 2006 and 6 February 2007,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants are all Slovenian nationals.

The applicant Mr Boris Rudolf was born in 1948 and lives in Slovenska Bistrica. The applicant Mr Stanislav Filipič was born in 1956 and lives in Bučkovci. The applicant Ms Marta Filipič was born in 1929 and lives in Mala Nedelja. They were all represented before the Court by Mr V. Slak, a lawyer practising in Maribor.

The applicant Ivan Jančič was born in 1956 and lives in Zreče. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Marovt, a lawyer practicing in Celje.

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

The applicants were parties to civil 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. Subsequently they lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, and Mr Jančič lodged also a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. The applicants 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.

After the Government had been given notice of the applications, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.

THE LAW

Pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their common factual and legal background.

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 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 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) 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