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 >>
MAKSIMOVIC v. SLOVENIA (no. 2) - 31675/05 [2011] ECHR 162 (1 February 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/162.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 162
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF MAKSIMOVIČ v. SLOVENIA (no. 2)
(Application
no. 31675/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
February 2011
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 Maksimovič v. Slovenia (no. 2),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 31675/05) 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 Stojan
Maksimovič (“the applicant”), on 18 August 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practising in
Medvode. The Slovenian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent.
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
20 February 2009 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 the provisions of Article 29 § 1 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
The
applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kranj.
On
29 March 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the
insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav before the Ljubljana District
Court (OkroZno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking
damages for the injuries sustained in a car accident.
Between
30 May 2002 and 14 March 2003 the applicant lodged thirteen
preliminary written submissions.
On
14 January 2003 the first hearing was held.
Between
11 February 2003 and 8 May 2003 three hearings were held.
On
12 May 2003 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission.
Between
19 June 2003 and 18 December 2003 three more hearings were held. At
the last of these three hearing the first-instance court appointed a
road traffic expert and adjourned the case indefinitely.
On
7 October 2004 the applicant urged the court to set a date for a
hearing.
On
15 February 2005 the expert submitted his opinion.
Between
10 March 2005 and 19 April 2005 the applicant lodged three
preliminary written submissions.
Between
14 September 2005 and 23 November 2005 three hearings were held.
Between
13 March 2006 and 4 April 2006 the applicant lodged three preliminary
written submissions.
On
29 January 2007 a hearing was held.
The
applicant lodged preliminary written submissions on 12 and
20 February 2007.
At
the last hearing, on 19 March 2007, the parties reached a settlement
and the proceedings were concluded.
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 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.
The
applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
The
Court 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).
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 the above mentioned case.
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
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 29 March 2002, the day
the applicant instituted proceedings with the Ljubljana District
Court, and ended on 19 March 2007, the day the parties reached a
settlement. It therefore lasted nearly five years at one level of
jurisdiction.
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.
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 14-16 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 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 9,500 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 4,000 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,043.23 for the costs and expenses
incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
The
Government did not comment on the applicant's claim.
The
Court notes that although the applicant was reminded by the Court of
the requirements concerning just satisfaction claims set out in Rule
60 of the Rules of the Court, he had not itemised or explained his
claims. The Court therefore makes no award under this head.
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 of the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention EUR 4,000 (four 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 1 February 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena
Tsirli Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
