[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Olga KOZINA v Slovenia - 30277/06 [2011] ECHR 1945 (3 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1945.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1945

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application nos. 30277/06 and 29153/08
Mumin ALJIĆ against Slovenia
and Olga KOZINA against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 November 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 lodged on lodged on 19 July 2006 and 13 June 2008 respectively,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Mumin Aljić, is a Bosnia and Herzegovina national who was born in 1954 and lives in Velenje. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The applicant, Ms Olga Kozina, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Izola. She was not represented before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which were finally resolved 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. They subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court or a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. They 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. The applicant Ms Olga Kozina further complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings had not been fair and that her case had been treated discriminatorily.

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 parties 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