European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vojko ZUREJ v Slovenia - 10386/03 [2010] ECHR 475 (16 March 2010 )
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/475.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 475
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
10386/03
by Vojko ZUREJ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power,
judges,
and Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2001,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Vojko Zurej, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Dramlje. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of proceedings (no. P 151/2001)
3. On 31 December 2001 an insurance company (Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.) instituted proceedings against the applicant.
4. On 1 February 2006 the Celje District Court (OkroZno sodišče v Celju) gave a first-instance judgment. An appeal was lodged.
5. On 1 February 2007 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) gave a judgment upholding the first-instance court’s judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
6. On 22 June 2009 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) with the Supreme Court. The supervisory appeal was rejected.
7. On 19 August 2009 the applicant lodged a motion for deadline.
The proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.
2. Second set of proceedings (no. P239/95)
8. On 15 December 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings against an insurance company (Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.) seeking compensation for damages occurred at the working place.
9. On 25 May 1996 the Celje District Court issued a judgment. The applicant appealed.
10. On 13 February 1997 the Celje Higher Court issued a decision and remitted the case for re-examination.
11. On 7 December 1998 a first-instance judgment was issued. The applicant appealed.
12. On 16 December 2001 the Celje Higher Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
13. On 8 May 2001 the Supreme Court gave a judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 June 2001.
B. Relevant domestic law
14. For relevant domestic law see the Court’s decision Zunič v. Slovenia (no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007).
15. In addition, the Amendments to the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Journal, No. 58/2009) came into effect on 11 August 2009. Section 8 provides that a just satisfaction claim can be lodged after the termination of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, provided that the acceleratory remedies, that is supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline, have been exhausted.
COMPLAINTS
16. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts was excessive. In substance, he also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
First set of proceedings (no. P 151/2001)
17. Firstly, the Court notes that the 2006 Act has been amended on 11 August 2009, allowing access to the just satisfaction claim as regards the proceedings before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 15 above).
18. The applicant lodged a supervisory appeal on 22 June 2009 and a motion for a deadline on 19 August 2009. He has therefore secured himself access to the just satisfaction claim once the proceedings before the Supreme Court terminate.
19. In view of the fact that the last acceleratory remedy was lodged less than nine months ago (on 19 August 2009) there is no reason to believe that the applicant will not have a prompt access to the just compensation claim (see Zunič v. Slovenia, §§ 47–53). The Court therefore finds that this part of the application is premature and the complaint regarding Article 6 of the Convention must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
20. As to the complaint under Article 13 the Court has already found that the 2006 Act does afford the applicant effective remedy in respect of his complaint about the length of proceedings (see paragraphs 17–19 above). That finding is also valid in the context of his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Second set of proceedings (no. P239/95)
21. The Court notes that the second set of proceedings terminated before 1 January 2007 and therefore falls under the provisions of section 25 of the 2006 Act.
22. The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 December 1994 and ended on 8 June 2001, when the Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted six years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Baltić v. Slovenia, no. 76512/01, 9 March 2006) the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings can still be considered reasonable.
23. The Court therefore finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President