British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
VRECKO v. SLOVENIA - 25616/02 [2006] ECHR 1144 (21 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/1144.html
Cite as:
[2006] ECHR 1144
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF VREČKO v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 25616/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
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 Vrečko v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C. Bîrsan,
President,
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:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 25616/02) against the
Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Slovenian national, Mrs Vera Vrečko (“the
applicant”), on 20 June 2002.
The
applicant was represented by Mrs M. Nosan, a lawyer practising in
Celje, Slovenia. The Slovenian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič,
State Attorney-General.
The
applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the
length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which she was
a party was excessive. In substance, she also complained about the
lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive
length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
On
13 September 2005 the
Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of
the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect to the
Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Škofja Vas.
On
15 October 1996 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče
v Celju) issued a decision in the inheritance proceedings finding
the applicant and her mother heiresses of the property of the
applicant's deceased father.
On
27 January 1999 the applicant instituted non-contentious civil
proceedings in the Celje Local Court against her brother S.V. seeking
the division of the land which they owned jointly.
On 22
November 1999 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint two
experts, one in construction engineering and the other in
agriculture, to assess the value of the real estate at issue.
On 26
February and 1 March 2000 the experts submitted their opinions.
On 22
February 2000 the applicant lodged a request for an interlocutory
measure.
On 19
May 2000 the court held a hearing where the applicant withdrew her
request concerning the interlocutory measure. The court decided to
issue a written judgment. The judgment dividing the real estate was
served on the applicant on 5 July 2000.
On
14 July 2000 the applicant appealed. Her adversary cross-appealed.
On 28
March 2002 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče
v Celju) allowed the appeals, set aside the first-instance
court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination. The
decision was served on the applicant on 19 April 2002.
On
19 April, 16 September and 28 October 2002 the applicant requested
the Celje Local Court to set a date for a hearing.
The
hearing scheduled for 29 November 2002 was adjourned at the request
of the applicant.
On 28
May 2003 the court held a hearing.
The
hearing scheduled for 21 November 2003 was adjourned at the request
of the applicant, because the parties retained an expert in an
attempt to settle the case out of the court.
On 10
January 2005 the parties informed the court that the out-of-court
settlement was not reached.
On 2
March 2003 the court held a hearing.
On 21
August 2006 the parties to the proceeding settled the case outside
the court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.
She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
In
substance, the applicant further complained that the remedies
available for excessive legal proceedings in Slovenia were
ineffective. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
“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.”
A. Admissibility
The
Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The
applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
The
Court notes that the present application is similar to the cases of
Belinger and Lukenda (see Belinger v. Slovenia
(dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001 and Lukenda v. Slovenia,
no. 23032/02, 6 October 2005). In those cases the Court dismissed the
Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because
it found that the legal remedies at the applicant's disposal were
ineffective. The Court recalls its findings in the
Lukenda judgment that the violation of the right to a trial
within a reasonable time is a systemic problem resulting from
inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of
justice.
As
regards the instant case, the Court finds that the Government have
not submitted any convincing arguments which would require the Court
to distinguish it from its established case-law.
The
Court further notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 27 January 1999, the
day the applicant instituted proceedings with the Celje Local Court,
and ended on 21 August 2006, the day the parties settled the case
outside the court. The relevant period therefore lasted nearly seven
years and seven months and three instances were involved.
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The
Court considers that the period of nearly one year and two months,
when the parties attempted to settle the case outside the court,
cannot be attributed to the first-instance court. The Court also
notes that another hearing was adjourned at the request of the
applicant.
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case
the length of the proceedings was nevertheless excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
2. Article 13
The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by
the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Lukenda,
cited above) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in
the present case.
Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the present case there has been a
violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy under
domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling
upholding her right to have her case heard within a reasonable time,
as set forth in Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“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.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 1,200 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant, who was represented by a qualified lawyer in the
proceedings before the Court, made no claim under this head.
Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her
any sum on that account.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
Holds
(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 1,200 (one
thousand two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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.
Vincent
Berger Corneliu Bîrsan
Registrar President
