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 >> Ana Majdica BREZOVNIK RAMSAK v Slovenia - 12459/07 [2010] ECHR 1530 (21 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1530.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1530 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
12459/07
by Ana Majdica BREZOVNIK RAMŠAK
against
Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet
Fura,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 March 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Ana Majdica Brezovnik Ramšak, a Slovenian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Šempeter. She was represented before the Court by Ms B. Zidar, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies in this respect.
On 18 September 2009 the Court decided to give notice to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court of the applicant's complaints detailed above.
On 25 January 2010 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings had lasted 4 years and 8 months for six instances and three levels of jurisdiction, and not 6 years and 8 months as claimed by the applicant. For these reasons the State Attorney's Office was not prepared to offer a settlement proposal under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay.
By a letter of 22 January 2010 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw the application, without specifying any particular reason for the withdrawal.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Elisabet Fura
Registrar President