CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s6ADF1EA6 { width:167.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 26918/08 Boris FARKAŠ against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   September 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2008, Having regard to the friendly settlement reached between the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Boris Farkaš, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1926 and lives in Križevci Pri Ljutomeru. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant was a defendant in criminal proceedings, which were finally resolved before 1 January 2007, when the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational, but afterwards continued before the Constitutional Court. THE LAW 1.     Complaints under Articles 6 (length of proceedings) and 13 of the Convention The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the applicant as regards the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The Court takes note that a settlement was reached between the parties at the domestic level by which the Government acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and undertook to pay the applicant compensation with respect to non-pecuniary damages incurred as a result of the unreasonable length of proceeding and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, 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 application as far as it concerns the above complaints out of the list in accordance with Article 37   §   1   (b) of the Convention. 2.     Other complaints The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair. Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases with regard to the complaints   under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Stephen Phillips   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President