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 >>
SIMONCIC v. SLOVENIA - 7351/04 [2011] ECHR 62 (18 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/62.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 62
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF SIMONČIČ v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 7351/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
January 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 Simončič v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Luis
López Guerra,
judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 7351/04) 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 two Slovenian nationals, Ms Silvana Simončič and Ms
Petra Simončič (“the applicants”), on 4
February 2004.
The
applicants were represented by Mr B. Verstovšek,
a lawyer practising in Celje. The
Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent.
The
applicants alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which
they were a party was excessive. In substance, they also complained
that there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the
excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
On
23 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
applicants were born in 1956 and 1982 and live in Maribor.
On
10 March 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the
Celje District Court (OkroZno sodišče v Celju)
seeking damages in the amount of 8,202.697 Slovenian tolars (SIT,
approximately 34,000 euros) for the death of a family member in a car
accident.
Between
25 August 1997 and 6 March 2000 the applicants lodged fourteen
preliminary written submissions and requests that a date be set for a
hearing.
On
7 April 2000 a hearing was held and the first-instance court
delivered a partial judgement. All three defending parties appealed.
On
27 September 2001 the Celje Higher Court (Višje
sodišče v Celju) delivered
a judgment upholding the appeal in part. An appeal on points of law
was lodged against the rejected part of the appeal by one of the
defending parties.
On
16 December 2004 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče)
rejected the appeal on points of law and the proceedings continued
before the first-instance court.
On
19 September 2005 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment
upholding the applicants' claim in part. An appeal was lodged.
On
7 February 2007 the Celje Higher Court issued a judgment upholding
the appeal in part. An appeal on points of law was lodged.
On
7 June 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal on points of law in
part and changed the second-instance judgment. The judgment was
served on the applicants on 29 June 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.
They 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 applicants further complained that the remedies
available for excessively lengthy 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
applicants contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
The
Court notes that the present case concerns proceedings which were
“finally resolved” within less than two months after 1
January 2007, when the new legislation providing remedies for the
length of proceedings (“the 2006 Act”) became
operational, and have continued before the Supreme Court.
As
far as the part of the proceedings before the second-instance court
is concerned, the Court notes that the second-instance judgment was
delivered on 7 February 2007 (see paragraph 12 above). The present
application is in this part thus 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
applicants' disposal were ineffective (ibid., §§ 21–24).
As
regards the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Court found in
Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009, §§
45-46 and § 55) that the remedies under the 2006 Act before the
Supreme Court were insufficient.
The
Court finds that the Government have not submitted any convincing
arguments which would require the Court to distinguish the present
case from the above mentioned cases.
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 10 March 1997, the day
the applicants instituted proceedings before the Celje District
Court, and ended on 29 June 2007, the day the Supreme Court judgment
was served on the applicants. It therefore lasted ten years and three
months at three levels 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants 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 for a case to be heard 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 21-23 above) and having regard to
the fact that the arguments put forward by the Government have
already been rejected in the cases of Maksimovič v. Slovenia
(cited above, §§ 29–30), and Lesjak, (cited
above, §§ 66-67), 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 applicants could have obtained
a ruling upholding their right to have their 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
applicants claimed 14,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
The
Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it finally awards them jointly
EUR 6,400 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 1,364 for costs and expenses incurred in
the proceedings before the Court.
The
Government did not comment on the applicants' claim.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. The Court considers it reasonable to award
the applicants jointly the sum of EUR 1,000 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 jointly to the applicants, within
three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention:
(i)
EUR 6,400 (six thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable
to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
