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 >>
RIJAVEC v. SLOVENIA - 36349/05 [2012] ECHR 833 (15 May 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/833.html
Cite as:
[2012] ECHR 833
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF RIJAVEC v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 36349/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
May 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rijavec v.
Slovenia,
ITMarkIntroduction
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde,
President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 April 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an
application (no. 21313/06) 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 Boris Rijavec (“the applicant”),
on 10 July 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer
practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A.
Pešec.
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 that
there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive
length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
On
9 July 2008 the President of the Section decided to inform the
Government of the application and to request them to submit
information under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court.
Further to receipt of the information requested, on 28
May 2010, the President decided to invite the
Government to submit, if they so wish, written observations on the
admissibility and merits of the case (Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the
Rules). In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was
assigned to a committee of three Judges.
THE FACTSITMarkFactsComplaintsStart
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On
22 October 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the
Celje District Court seeking the compensation of damages sustained in
a car accident.
On
3 September 1998 the first hearing was held.
On
16 September 1998 the first-instance court appointed a medical
expert.
On
26 February 1999 the expert opinion was submitted to the
first-instance court.
On
3 June 1999 a hearing was held.
On
29 June 1999 the first-instance court appointed a new medical expert.
On
1 September 1999 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
On
4 November 1999 a hearing was held and the court decided to appoint
the third expert.
On
7 February 2000 the expert submitted his opinion.
On
23 March 2000 the court postponed the hearing scheduled for 28 March
2000 on the request of the applicant due to his medical condition.
On
4 May 2000 the first-instance court held the last hearing and
delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part.
Both parties appealed.
On 17 October 2001 the Celje Higher Court remitted part of the case
for re-examination and rejected the remainder of the claim.
On
19 December 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law
against the rejected part of his appeal before the second-instance
court.
On
10 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law
and the proceedings at first-instance resumed.
On
9 December 2003 a hearing was held where a decision to amend the
expert opinion was taken.
On
1 June 2004, during the last hearing, the first-instance court
delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed.
On
14 April 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court rendered a judgment.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
For
relevant domestic law see judgment Ribič
v. Slovenia (no. 20965/03, 19
October 2010, §19).
ITMarkFactsComplaintsEndTHE
LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND
13 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the proceedings to which he was a party had
been excessively long. 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 excessively long 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
Court 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 (see Ribič v. Slovenia,
no. 20965/03, 19 October 2010, §§ 37-42). It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
The period to be taken into consideration began on 22
October 1997, the date the Convention entered into force with respect
to Slovenia, and ended on 14 April 2005. The proceedings thus lasted
for seven years and six months at three levels of jurisdiction (five
instances were involved due to remittals of the case).
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 (see, Bendič v. Slovenia,
77519/01, §§ 21-23, 1 June 2006; Jenko v. Slovenia,
no. 4267/02, §§ 19-21, 6 April 2006; Mulej-Zupanec &
Others v. Slovenia, no. 77545/01, §§ 17-19, 9 March
2006 and Gaber v. Slovenia, no. 5059/02, §§ 17-19, 6
April 2006) the Court considers that length of the proceedings in the
present case 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 in the case of Ribič v. Slovenia
(cited above, §§ 37-42) and having regard to the
fact that the Government have not submitted any convincing arguments
which would require it to distinguish the present application from
the aforementioned case the Court considers 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
applicants claimed 15,000 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 3,200 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also requested reimbursement for costs and expenses
incurred in the proceedings before the Court. This claim was
supported by itemised list of expenses amounting to EUR 455 similar
to the lists normally submitted to the courts in domestic
proceedings.
The
Government did not comment on the applicant’s 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. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant
EUR 455, under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.
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, the following
amounts:
(i)
EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may
be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 455 (four hundred and fifty-five euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, 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 applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Ann
Power-Forde
Deputy Registrar President
