(Application no. 25616/02)
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 Vrečko 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:
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 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.
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.
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 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.
Berger Corneliu Bîrsan