CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 août 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s20842762 { height:95.1pt } .sCB83CF12 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB2BFF4F9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s58ED8ED7 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s276DBA62 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s11961426 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 29944/05, 18057/06, 19681/06, 22087/06 and 22185/06 by Jaka SOBOČAN and Others against Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30   August 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 settlement agreements signed by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS All the applicants are Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia. The applicant Mr Jaka Sobočan was represented before the Court by Mr   Z. Lipej, a lawyer practising in Medvode. Mr Robert Mencinger was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan-Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Anica Lončar was represented before the Court by Ms J. Jazbinšek-Goričan, a lawyer practicing in Celje. The applicant Mr   Stanko Kalan was represented before the Court by Ms M. Krainer, a   lawyer practicing in Radovljica. Mr Valentin Zajec was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. All 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”). 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                                                                       Annex   No. Application No. Applicant’s Name Year of Birth Address Date of Introduction Date of withdrawal 1. 29944/05   Jaka SOBOČAN 1972 Ljubljana 08/08/2005 03/12/2010 2. 18057/06 Robert MENCINGER 1969   Mislinja 28/03/2006 14/02/2011 3. 19681/06 Anica LONČAR 1953   Rogaška Slatina 20/04/2006 04/03/2011 4. 22087/06 Stanko KALAN 1938 Podnart 12/05/2006 14/03/2011 5. 22185/06 Valentin ZAJEC 1950 Ljubljana 10/05/2006 28/01/2011