CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10187/11 Uroš ČEH against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3   September 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2011, Having regard to the applicants’ withdrawal of the application, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Uroš Čeh, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Braslovče. He was represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Teržan, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant was a party to proceedings which were at the time of the notification of the application to the Government still pending. 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 including compensation for damages caused by the undue length of proceedings and costs of applicant’s representation in the domestic settlement proceedings. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court but that he maintained his claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred before the Court. THE LAW A.     Striking out The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (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. B.     Application of Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of the Court Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides: “When an application has been struck out, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. ...” The Court reiterates that the general principles governing the reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002). Furthermore, under Rule 60 § 2, itemised particulars of any claim made under Article 41 of the Convention must be submitted, together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia (striking out) [GC], nos. 44574/98 , 45133/98 and 48316/99, § 276, 3   October 2008 and S.I. v. Slovenia, no. 45082/05, 13 October 2011, § 87). The Court notes that the settlement agreement provided for reimbursement of the costs in the domestic settlement proceeding. As to the costs before the Court, and without taking any decision as to whether the Court should exercise its discretion to award the costs in this case, the Court notes that in his submission to the Court the applicant failed to itemise or substantiate his claims but only generally requested the Court to award him the costs incurred before the Court. In these circumstances, the Court finds no reason to make any specific award in respect of reimbursement of the costs. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Dismisses the applicant’s claim for costs; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President