(Application no. 6539/02)
7 December 2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Čop v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J. Hedigan, President,
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mrs I. Ziemele,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefevre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 November 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
On 10 December 1993 the court allowed the enforcement.
On 15 December 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision because the court failed to decide on cost and expenses of the proceedings.
At an undetermined time AT objected the enforcement and the court stayed the enforcement.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 1 January 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
On 12 February 1996 AT amended its objection and informed the court of the amount of debt the company estimated to have had towards the applicant.
On 11 February 1999 the applicant filed a request for supervision with the Ministry of Justice, because the court had not yet delivered a decision.
On 10 March 1999 the court referred AT to start contentious proceeding in order to challenge the enforcement order.
On 2 November 2000 the court invited the applicant to reply to the claim, which he did on 11 December 2000.
On 15 October 2002 the applicant lodged a counter claim against AT.
On 9 November 2004 the court held the first hearing.
The hearing held on 14 December 2004 was adjourned in agreement with the parties, because the Pension and Invalidity Fund failed to provide the evidence the court had sought.
On 1 February 2005 the court held a hearing which the applicant did not attend. The court decided to terminate proceedings.
On 1 March 2005 the Court decided to reopen the proceedings in order to appoint a financial expert, as requested by AT.
The proceedings are still pending.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
1. Article 6 § 1
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
2. Article 13
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Berger John Hedigan