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 >> Bernardka CEDE v Slovenia - 1954/07 [2011] ECHR 1929 (11 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1929.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1929 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
1954/07
by Bernardka ČEDE
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 application lodged on 11 December 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Bernardka Čede, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Šentjur pri Celju. She was represented before the Court by Mr T. Bromše, a lawyer practising in Celje. 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 an appeal on points of law with the Supreme 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.
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.
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 Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President