BAILII
        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 >> GRENKO v. SLOVENIA - 29891/02 [2006] ECHR 786 (13 July 2006)
        URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/786.html
        Cite as: [2006] ECHR 786
        [New search] [Contents list] [Help]





        THIRD SECTION







        CASE OF GRENKO v. SLOVENIA


        (Application no. 29891/02)












        JUDGMENT



        STRASBOURG


        13 July 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 Grenko 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 L. Caflisch,
         Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
         Mr E. Myjer,
         Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
         Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
        and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

        Having deliberated in private on 22 June 2006,

        Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

        PROCEDURE

      1. The case originated in an application (no. 29891/02) 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, Mr Mihael Grenko (“the applicant”), on 26 July 2002.

      2. The applicant was represented by the Verstovšek lawyers. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.

      3. The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which he was a party was excessive. In substance, he also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).

      4. On 7 September 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect to the Government. Under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

        5. THE FACTS

      5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Braslovče.

      6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

      7. On 22 July 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by a third person. The perpetrator’s liability was insured with the insurance company T. (“T”).

      8. On 19 April 1999 the applicant instituted indemnity proceedings in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju), claiming damages in the amount of 25,256,340 tolars (SIT). He requested to be exempted from payment of the court fees.

      9. On 31 August 1999, 3 January and 14 November 2000 and on 19 January 2001 the applicant filed pleadings and/or submitted fresh evidence and/or requested that a date be set for a hearing.

      10. On 5 February 2001 the hearing was held and the applicant’s proposal for the appointment of a traffic expert was upheld.

      11. On 21 March, 21 May and 18 September 2001 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.

      12. On 9 May 2002 the applicant filed pleadings and submitted new evidence.

      13. On 6 June 2002 the court requested the Žalec Local Court to consult a case-file in criminal proceedings. On 28 June 2002 the latter replied that the criminal proceedings were still pending before the Higher Court. On 2 June 2002 the Celje District Court repeated its request and on 11 September 2002 it received the criminal case-file.

      14. On 4 September 2002 the applicant filed pleadings.

      15. On 18 October 2002 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.

      16. On 10 January 2003 a hearing was held. The court upheld the applicant’s request to appoint two experts lodged on 23 January 2003. On 2 February 2004 they submitted their expert opinions.

      17. On 18 February 2004 the applicant filed submissions.

      18. On 16 March 2004, following the Court’s dismissal of one expert, a new expert was appointed.

      19. On 23 March 2004 the applicant filed pleadings and on 17 May 2004 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.

      20. On 9 June 2004 the applicant increased his request.

      21. On 22 June and 21 September 2004 hearings were held.

      22. On 8 October 2004 the court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 November 2004.

      23. On 3 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal and requested the District Court to correct the judgment.

      24. The proceedings are pending.

        25. THE LAW

        I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

      25. The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

        26. “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

      26. 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:

        27. “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

      27. The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

      28. The applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies available were not effective.

      29. 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.

      30. 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.

      31. 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.

        32. B.  Merits

        1.  Article 6 § 1

      32. The period to be taken into consideration began on 19 April 1999, the day the applicant instituted proceedings with the Celje District Court, and has not yet ended. It therefore lasted seven years and one month for two levels of jurisdiction.

      33. 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).

      34. 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, in particular before the first-instance court, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement.

        35. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

        2.  Article 13

      35. 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.

      36. 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 his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1.

        37. II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

      37. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

        38. “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

      38. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR)in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

      39. The Government contested the claim.

      40. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 4,800 under that head.

        41. B.  Costs and expenses

      41. The applicant also claimed approximately EUR 1,064 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

      42. The Government argued that the claim was too high.

      43. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court also notes that the applicant’s lawyers, who also represented the applicant in Lukenda (cited above), lodged nearly 400 applications which, apart from the facts, are essentially the same as this one. Accordingly, in the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 for the proceedings before the Court.

        44. C.  Default interest

      44. 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.

        45. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

      45. Declares the application admissible;


      46. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;


      47. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;


      48. Holds

        49. (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 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred 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;


      49. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

        50. Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 July 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Vincent Berger John Hedigan
        Registrar President


About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010