(Application no. 33595/02)
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 Herič 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 the basis of, inter alia, the expert opinion and partly paid compensation, the applicant three times modified his claim during the proceedings.
Between 24 May 1996 and 21 May 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 3 September 1996 and 30 May 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 December 2001.
On 5 March 2003 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case in the respective part to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 3 April 2003.
A hearing was held on 19 May 2003.
After the hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 September 2003.
On 10 March 2005 the Celje Higher Court partly upheld the appeal and changed the first-instance court's judgment accordingly. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 March 2005.
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 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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;
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