European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application nos. 28180/05, 38903/05, 45731/06, 50650/06, 1095/07, 2987/07, 3682/07, 3833/07, 4918/07, 9850/07 by Marta LELJAK and 9 others

against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are all Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia.

Also the applicant Mr Viljem Senica was a Slovenian national living in Slovenia. He was represented before the Court by Mr Vladimir Slak, a lawyer practicing in Maribor. Mr Viljem Senica died on 22 January 2007, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 15 January 2010 the applicant’s widow Ms Stanislava Senica and his late son Mr MatjaZ Senica informed the Court that they wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. Like the applicant, also his heirs, who are Slovenian nationals and live in Slovenia, were represented before the Court by Mr Vladimir Slak, a lawyer practicing in Maribor.

The applicants Ms Majda Konič and Mr Branko Kos were not represented before the Court. Ms Marta Leljak was represented before the Court by Odvetniška DruZba Čeferin, a law firm from Grosuplje. Mr Damijan Kos was represented before the Court by Ms J. Gričnik, a lawyer practicing in Zalec. Mr Matic Kolar was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practicing in Medvode. Mr Iztok Bizjak and Mr Simon Kodre were represented before the Court by Mr R. Munih, a lawyer practicing in Koper. Mr Franc Kotnik was represented before the Court by Mr. B Verstovšek, a lawyer practicing in Celje. Mr Alojz Prelec was represented before the Court by Mr D. Zeleznik, a lawyer practicing in SeZana.

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

The applicants were parties to domestic proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.

For details concerning each particular case see the attached annex.

B.  Relevant domestic law

For the relevant domestic law see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).

In addition, some applicants also had other complaints. The applicant Ms Marta Leljak complained under Article 6 § 1 that she did not have a fair trial, since she did not succeed in the domestic proceedings with her claim for having had declared as null and void the tenancy contract she had concluded with the company Z. R. and the individual F. Z. Such decision has been rendered after the domestic courts established, inter alia, that she had been in no way affected in her tenancy rights by the newly discovered fact that the rented company’s property was under mortgage. Furthermore, the applicant also argued under Article 14 that she was discriminated in the domestic proceedings, since the courts distinguished between her tenancy rights and the property rights of those who had purchased the company’s property under mortgage.

The applicant Ms Majda Konič complained under Article 6 § 1 that her right to fair trial has been breached, since she was not granted free legal aid throughout the domestic proceedings, after it had been established that she did not fulfil the condition of having realistic chances in succeeding with her law suit. In substance, the applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that due to protracted proceedings she was not able to recover her debt from the company, which had been declared bankrupt during the proceedings. With respect to this claim she also instituted proceedings under Article 21 of the 2006 Act, which are still pending before the Velenje Local Court.

The applicant Mr Branko Kos complained under Article 6 § 1 that he did not have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings, in which he was convicted for having concluded a contract detrimental to the company I. B. whose director he was, thereby causing a substantial pecuniary damage to the company. He also invoked Article 14 by claiming that also the State itself established so-called by-pass companies. The applicant did not lodge a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court with respect to these complaints.

THE LAW

A.  Complaints about the length of the proceedings under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention

In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of the Court, all the applicants received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposals under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage (see the attached annex). It further notes that the applicants have since been in a position either to negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that should be unsuccessful, to lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008).

The Court reiterates Article 37 of the Convention, which in the relevant part reads as follows:

“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

...

(c)  for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the applications in the part concerning the complaints about undue length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention and that they should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c).

2. Remaining complaints

As far as the other applicants’ complaints are concerned, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that they are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications,

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in the part concerning complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 and the lack of efficient remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the applications.

Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska
Deputy Registrar President

Annex