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 >>
STREHAR v. SLOVENIA - 34787/04 [2011] ECHR 1178 (21 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1178.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 1178
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF STREHAR v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 34787/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 July
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Strehar v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska,
President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 June 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 34787/04) 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, Ms Hilda Strehar (“the applicant”),
on 6 September 2004.
The
applicant was not represented before the Court. The Slovenian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, T. Mihelič Zitko, State Attorney.
The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which she
was a party was excessive. In substance, she also complained that
there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive
length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
On
14 October 2010 the Court decided to communicate the complaints
concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in
that respect to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14,
the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Polskava.
On
5 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before
the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court seeking annulment of a purchase
contract.
On
6 July 1999 the first-instance court annulled the contract. An appeal
was lodged.
On
24 October 2000 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and
remitted the case for re-examination.
Between
12 July 2006 and 15 February 2007 three hearings were held.
On
27 February 2007 the applicant withdrew the claim and a decision on
termination of proceedings was issued on 21 March 2007.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A
description of relevant domestic law can be found in the Nezirović
v. Slovenia decision (no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008, §§
13 20).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.
She 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 legal 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. They stated,
in particular, that the applicant should have availed herself of a
just satisfaction claim as provided by the section 25 of the 2006
Act.
The
applicant did not comment on that issue.
The
Court observes that the transitional provision
of the 2006 Act, namely section 25, provides for the procedure to be
followed in respect of applications where the violation of the
“reasonable time” requirement has already ceased to exist
and which were lodged with the Court before 1 January 2007. As
the proceedings to which the applicant was a party terminated on 21
March 2007, the above provision does not apply to the applicant’s
case. The Court further notes that the present application is similar
to the case of Maksimovič v.
Slovenia (no. 28662/05, 22 June 2010). In that case 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 (ibid., §§
21–24).
The
Court finds that the Government have not submitted any convincing
arguments which would require the Court to distinguish it from the
above-mentioned case and therefore rejects this objection.
The
Court further notes that the application is not manifestly
ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 5 September 1997, the
day the applicant instituted proceedings with the Slovenska Bistrica
District Court, and ended on 21 March 2007, the day the decision
terminating the proceedings was issued. It therefore lasted nine
years and six months and two levels of jurisdiction were involved.
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 was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement (see, for example,
Marjan Hriberšek v. Slovenia, no. 36054/02, §§
16-18, 27 April 2006).
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). In view of its findings concerning the exhaustion of
domestic remedies (see paragraphs 14-17 above) and having regard to
the fact that the arguments put forward by the Government have
already been rejected in the case of Maksimovič v. Slovenia
(cited above, §§ 29–30), the Court finds 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 her 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 140,682 euros (EUR) in respect
of pecuniary damage. The applicant explained that this amount
consisted of the following expenditure: the price of the apartment
she had purchased, the construction of a garage, the purchase of a
new garage door, the installation of the sound isolation, the price
of one part of the building she had purchased, and, lastly, the
façade finishing works. The applicant further claimed
EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested both claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage in respect of the excessive length of the
proceedings and of the lack of an effective remedy. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards her EUR 8,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating
to the proceedings before the Convention organs and this is not a
matter which the Court has to examine of its own motion (see Motière
v. France, no. 39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000).
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, within three months, EUR 8,000
(eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska
Deputy Registrar President
