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 >> Jurij and Milena HOCEVAR v Slovenia - 30241/06 [2011] ECHR 459 (22 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/459.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 459 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
30241/06
by Jurij and Milena HOČEVAR
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 February 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 application lodged on 27 June 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the second applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant Ms Milena Hočevar (the second applicant) is a Slovenian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Ljubljana. She was married to the applicant Mr Jurij Hočevar (the first applicant) who was also born in 1943 and lived in Ljubljana. He died on 16 May 2008, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 22 October 2008 the Ljubljana Local Court declared that the second applicant was one of the first applicant’s heirs. On 16 September 2010 the second applicant declared that she wished to pursue the part of the application concerning the first applicant.
The second applicant was represented before the Court by Ms M. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
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. They subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
In the present case, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the second applicant in respect of her own complaints as well as in respect of the late first applicant’s complaints.
By the settlement agreement signed by the State Attorney’s Office and the second applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the second applicant the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The second applicant accepted the amount as 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 these complaints. The second applicant subsequently informed the Court, in writing, that the case had been settled at the domestic level and that she wished to withdraw the application in its entirety.
The Court first notes that the second applicant as the heir of the first applicant wished to continue the present proceedings on behalf of her late husband and finds that there are no obstacles for her to do so (see, for example, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008).
Furthermore, the Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Holds that the second applicant has standing to continue the present proceedings in the first applicant’s stead;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President