[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Rok DJURIC v Slovenia - 31294/06 [2011] ECHR 1932 (11 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1932.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1932

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31294/06
Rok DJURIĆ against Slovenia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 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 reached between the applicants and the State Attorney’s Office,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

All the applicants are Slovenian nationals.

The applicant Mr Rok Djurić was born in 1984 and lives in Rimske toplice. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Esma Hafizovič was born in 1968 and lives in Medvode. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practicing in Medvode. Mr Matija Cvelfar was born in 1941 and lives in Celje. He was not represented before the Court. Mr Roman Ratej was born in 1970 and lives in Celje. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Mateja Erjavc was born in 1962 and lives in Maribor. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan-Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Ms Polona Kalan was born in 1955 and lives in Ljubljana. She was represented before the Court by Mr D. Đuragić, a lawyer practicing in Ljubljana.

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

The applicants were parties to civil proceedings, which were terminated 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”). They complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the 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 applications, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicants. The applicants subsequently informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that they wished to withdraw their applications introduced before the Court.

THE LAW

Pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their common factual and legal background.

The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the applicants and the State Attorney’s Office, 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

Appendix