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 >>
RAMSAK v. SLOVENIA - 33584/02 [2007] ECHR 931 (15 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/931.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 931
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF RAMŠAK v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 33584/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
November 2007
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 Ramšak v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C. Bîrsan,
President,
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
Mrs E.
Fura-Sandström,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and
Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 33584/02) 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 JoZe
Ramšak (“the applicant”), on 11 June 2001.
The
applicant was represented by Mrs M. K. Verstovšek,
a lawyer practising in Celje.
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 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).
On
9 June 2006 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
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Šentrupert.
On
25 August 1992 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The
perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the
insurance company ZT.
On
14 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT
in the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju)
seeking damages in the amount of 7,682,846 Slovenian tolars
(approximately 32,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of
Slovenia.
Between
12 October and 27 December 1994 the applicant lodged four preliminary
written submissions and twice requested the court to set a date for a
hearing.
On 1
January 1995 the reform of the Slovenian judicial system took effect
and the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (OkroZno
sodišče v Celju).
Between
2 November 1995 and 28 April 1997 the applicant lodged six
preliminary written submissions. In the same period he also made two
requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Two
hearings were held, on 29 November 1995 and 9 June 1997.
During
the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At
the last-mentioned 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 July 1997.
On
11 July 1997 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje
sodiče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 10
June 1998 the court allowed the applicant's appeal in part, dismissed
ZT's appeal and remitted the case in part to the first-instance court
for new fact-finding and reassessment of evidence. The judgment was
served on the applicant on 5 October 1998.
O
30 October and 2 November 1998 respectively, the applicant and ZT
lodged appeals on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno
sodišče).
On 28
December 1999 the Supreme Court allowed ZT's appeal on points of law
in part and dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court upheld the
judgment of the second-instance court in part remitting the case to
the first-instance court. The judgment was served on the applicant on
10 February 2000.
Between
15 May and 13 December 2000 the applicant lodged four preliminary
written submissions with the Celje District Court as regards the
remitted part of the case.
Three
hearings were held between 5 June 2000 and 15 January 2001.
During
the renewed proceedings, the court appointed another medical expert.
At
the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written
judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was
served on the applicant on 9 April 2001.
On
20 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. He
also requested that the first-instance court correct its judgment.
On 25
April 2001 the latter corrected its judgment of 15 January 2001.
On 23
June 2001 the applicant appealed against the corrected judgment to
the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 23
October 2002 the Celje Higher Court dismissed all the appeals. The
judgment was served on the applicant on 27 November 2002.
On
3 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to
the Supreme Court.
On 11
November 2003 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The
judgment was served on the applicant on 5 December 2003.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
1. The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial
without undue Delay
The
Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay
(Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja,
Official Journal, No. 49/2006) has been implemented since 1
January 2007. Under its sections 1 and 2, the right to a trial
within a reasonable time is guaranteed for a party to court
proceedings, a participant under the Act governing non-contentious
proceedings and an injured party in criminal proceedings.
Section 25 lays down the following transitional rules
in relation to applications already pending before the Court:
Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained
prior to implementation of this Act
“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a
trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed
a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the
date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney's Office shall
offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction
within four months after the date of receipt of the case referred by
the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall
submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney's Office within
two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State
Attorney's Office. The State Attorney's Office shall decide on the
proposal as soon as possible and within a period of four months at
the latest. ...
(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in
paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney's
Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four
months after the date on which the party filed its proposal, the
party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act.
The party may bring an action within six months after receiving the
State Attorney's Office reply that the party's proposal referred to
in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of
the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney's
Office to decide to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type
or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act
concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a 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.
He 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 length of court 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, in particular
after the implementation of the Act on the Protection of the Right to
a Trial without undue Delay (the “2006 Act”) from 1
January 2007.
The
applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
The
Court notes that section 25 of the 2006 Act explicitly refers to
proceedings before international courts initiated before 1 January
2007 and provides for certain remedies in cases of domestic
proceedings which had terminated. However, the Court found in the
Grzinčič judgment
that the conditions laid down in that section were not fulfilled as
regards applications concerning terminated proceedings which had been
notified to the Slovenian Government before 1 January 2007, such as
the present one (see Grzinčič
v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 67, 3 May 2007).
The
Court therefore finds that the present application is similar to that
examined in the relevant part of the Grzinčič
judgment (cited above, § 68),
in which 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 finds that the Government have not submitted any convincing
arguments which would require the Court to depart 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
23
The period to be taken into consideration began on 28 June 1994, the
date on which the Convention entered into force with respect to
Slovenia, and ended on 5 December 2003, the date on which the Supreme
Court's judgment was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted
over nine years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction. Due
to remittal, decisions were rendered at six instances.
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).
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 when the case was first
considered by the first-instance court, was 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 Grzinčič, 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 his right to have his 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 approximately 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 him EUR 5,700 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed approximately EUR 1,050 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court.
The
Government argued that the claim was too high.
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 lawyer is one of
the Verstovšek lawyers, who lodged
approximately 850 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.
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 5,700 (five
thousand seven 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Corneliu Bîrsan
Registrar President
