European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 45496/06
Kata VUK
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ann Power-Forde, President,

Boštjan M. Zupančič,

Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 September 2006,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Kata Vuk, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Radomlje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 27 March 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in an accident at the workplace.

On 15 May 2003 the applicant has been invited to settle the matter through mediation.

On 4 November 2003 the first hearing was held.

On 13 November 2003 the first-instance court issued a decision appointing an expert.

On 31 December 2003 the expert submitted the opinion to the court.

Between 25 March 2004 and 13 April 2005 three hearings were held. After the last haring the first-instance court rendered a judgment. An appeal was lodged.

On 5 April 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 19 June 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing where the parties agreed to settle.

On 17 August 2006 the written decision on the court settlement was served on the applicant.

B.  Relevant domestic law

For relevant domestic law see decision Repar v. Slovenia, no. 40739/05, 12 October 2010).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts was excessive. In substance, she 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

Further to the notification of the case under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, the Government informed the Court that the State Attorney’s Office had refused to apply section 25 to the present case, stating that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed. As a result, no settlement proposal was submitted to the applicant.

The Court recalls that the “reasonable” length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent 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).

The Court observes that the time to be taken in consideration in the present case started on 27 March 2003, the date when the domestic proceedings were instituted, and ended on 17 August 2006, the date when the written decision on the court settlement was served on the applicant. The proceedings therefore lasted three years and five months at two levels of jurisdiction and the case was once remitted for re-examination.

Having regard to all the material submitted to it and having regard to the Court’s case-law on the subject (see for example Repar v. Slovenia (cited above), Takeva v. Bulgaria, no. 56023/00, 4 September 2006 and Hornak v. Slovakia, no. 43527/04, 24 November 2009) the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings can still be considered reasonable.

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.

As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies the Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim that her right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated. Therefore, this claim does not reveal any appearance of violation of this provision.

Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde
Deputy registrar President