(Application no. 21675/02)
21 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 Nose v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 November 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
None of the thirteen hearings held between 14 February 1996 and 20 September 2000 was adjourned at the request of the applicant. At the hearings, the court heard seven witnesses.
Between 23 February 1996 and 14 June 2000 the applicant lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. He withdrew the claims against two of the respondents. In this time, the respondents lodged twenty-seven written submissions.
During this time the applicant made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing or that the court continue examining the case.
In the course of the proceedings the court appointed a fire-safety expert. Since the originally appointed expert had moved to an unknown address, a new expert was appointed. The court also heard the appointed expert and requested him to submit two amendments to his opinion.
At the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 22 November 2000.
On 21 August 2001 the applicant's company Hipec d.o.o. ceased to exist and was deleted from the Register of Companies.
On 12 July 2002 the court allowed the appeal in part, set aside a part of the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
Between 22 January 2003 and 18 November 2005 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. The respondents lodged seven preliminary submissions.
He also made a request for priority treatment of his case, which was upheld.
None of the seven hearings held between 19 March 2003 and 18 January 2006 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
In the course of the proceedings the court appointed a fire-safety expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
The court also appointed a financial expert, who was dismissed at the applicant's request, because the expert had participated in the criminal investigation following the burning down of the building at issue. The court appointed a new financial expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 16 February 2006.
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
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 (six hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Berger Corneliu Bîrsan