Omerzu Savric v. Slovenia

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 18516/06, 19158/06, 21193/06, 22177/06, 29823/06, 29880/06, 30116/06, 30185/06, 30482/06, 48747/06, 51053/06 and 8645/07 by Omerzu Šavrič and others against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2010 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabet Fura, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the Government's settlement proposals made to the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 The applicants are all nationals of Slovenia (see the attached appendix).

2 The applicant Ms B. Omerzu Šavrič was represented before the Court by Ms J. Goričan Jazbinšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

3 The applicants Ms S. Jambrošič, Mr D. Barbulovič, Mr R. Vehabovič, Mr M. Kok and Mr Z. Oljača were represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

4 The applicants Ms A. Lesjak and Mr B. Kuhar were represented before the Court by Mr D. Teržan, a lawyer practising in Celje.

5 The applicants Mr M. Premru, Mr F. Uršič and Mr A. Turinek were represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

6 The applicant Mr A. Horvat was represented before the Court by Mr N. Grgurevič, a lawyer practising in Maribor.

7 The applicant Mr D. Turk was represented before the Court by Ms R. Godnjov Špik, a lawyer practising in Tržič.

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

The circumstances of the cases

9 The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

10 The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved ( pravnomočno končan postopek ) 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.

11 Subsequently, some of them lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ), and in certain cases also a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ).

12 In some cases the applicants lodged acceleratory remedies under the 2006 Act.

13 The details concerning each particular case are indicated in the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

14 The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).

15 The applicant in application no. 51053/06 also complained that his rights under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention were violated due to the undue length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1 Complaint about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention

16 In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications in 2010, they submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to each of the applicants.

17 By the settlement agreements signed by the State's 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.

18 The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached settlements with the State's Attorney's Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.

19 The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

20 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 do not wish to pursue 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).

21 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.

2 Remaining complaints

22 As to the remaining complaints in app. no. 51053/06, in the light of all the 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 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 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 with regard to the complaints about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;

Decides to declare the remaining complaints in the application no. 51053/06 inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application No.

Applicant's Name

Year of Birth

Address

Date of Introduction

Date of domestic settlement and compensation paid to the applicant

Date of the applicant's withdrawal of the application

1.

18516/06

Bernarda OMERZU

ŠAVRIČ

1919

Celje

05/04/2006

19/07/2010, 5,000.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 559.81 EUR for costs and expenses

08/09/2010

2.

19158/06

Silva JAMBROŠIČ

1955

Maribor

26/04/2006

22/09/2010, 5,000.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 577.92 EUR for costs and expenses

28/09/2010

3.

21193/06

Dragoljub BARBULOVIČ

1949

Celje

19/04/2006

12/10/2010, 900.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 285.08 EUR for costs and expenses

13/10/2010

4.

22177/06

Ramiz VEHABOVIČ

1957

Trbovlje

10/05/2006

28/07/2010, 900.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 298.27 EUR for costs and expenses

26/08/2010

5.

29823/06

Marjan KOK

1975

Radeče

11/07/2006

09/09/2010, 315.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 147.38 EUR for costs and expenses

22/09/2010

6.

29880/06

Anica LESJAK

1955

Gorica pri Slivnici

08/07/2006

06/09/2010, 540.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 287.42 EUR for costs and expenses

13/09/2010

7.

30116/06

Milan PREMRU

Franc URŠIČ

1949

1948

Piran

Sečovlje

10/07/2006

27/09/2010, 900.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage to each applicant and 323.30 EUR for costs and expenses

29/09/2010

8.

30185/06

Boštjan KUHAR

1970

Petrovče

10/07/2006

07/09/2010, 2,160.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 425.11 EUR for costs and expenses

13/09/2010

9.

30482/06

Zdravko OLJAČA

1960

Velenje

19/07/2006

30/08/2010, 1,080.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 285.08 EUR for costs and expenses

10/09/2010

10.

48747/06

Andrej TURINEK

1973

Skorno pri Šoštanju

14/11/2006

17/09/2010, 540.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 287.42 EUR for costs and expenses

22/09/2009

11.

51053/06

Anton HORVAT

1957

Maribor

07/12/2006

19/08/2010, 1,800.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 413.10 EUR for costs and expenses

04/10/2010

12.

8645/07

Drago TURK

1948

Preserje

28/12/2006

01/10/2010, 2,160.00 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 421.37 EUR for costs and expenses

06/10/2010