European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 172

March 2014

Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC] - 26828/06

Judgment 12.3.2014 [GC] See: [2014] ECHR 262

Article 41

Just satisfaction

Award in respect of pecuniary damage incurred by the applicants as a result of unlawful removal from the Register of Permanent Residents

Article 46

Pilot judgment

General measures

Respondent State required to introduce and implement ad hoc domestic compensation scheme

Facts - In a judgment delivered on 26 June 2012 (“the principal judgment”) the Grand Chamber held, unanimously, that there had been violations of Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention, which essentially originated in the prolonged failure of the Slovenian authorities to regularise the applicants’ residence status following their unlawful “erasure” from the Register of Permanent Residents and to provide them with adequate redress. As a result, not only the applicants in this particular case, but also a large number of other persons had been and were still affected by that measure. The Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure under Article 46 of the Convention and Rule 61 of the Rules of Court and ordered the respondent State to set up as a general measure an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme within one year of the delivery of the principal judgment.

Law - Article 41: The Grand Chamber stressed that the six applicants, who did not possess any Slovenian identity documents, had as a result of the “erasure” been left in a legal vacuum, and therefore in a situation of vulnerability, legal uncertainty and insecurity for a lengthy period of time. The loss of legal status resulting from their “erasure” had entailed significant material consequences. Given that the applicants had been “erased” without prior notification and had learned of their situation only incidentally, there was a multi-layered causal link between the unlawful measure and the pecuniary damage sustained.

Accordingly, the Court examined the applicants’ entitlement to just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage under two categories. To compensate for loss of past income, it made awards in respect of social allowances (to each applicant) and child benefits (to two applicants). No award was made in respect of housing allowance because the domestic law in force since 2003 conditioned payment of the allowance on the possession of Slovenian citizenship and the applicants had failed to prove that they would have fulfilled the conditions under the previous legislation. As regards the second category of pecuniary damage - loss of future income - no awards were made in respect of pension rights as the granting of the applicants’ claims in respect of social allowances precluded any claim in this regard.

Article 46: The Court noted that the respondent Government had failed to set up an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme within one year from the date of the principal judgment. However, they had not disputed the necessity of general measures at national level. In this context, the Grand Chamber had due regard to the fact that the Act on the setting up of an ad hoc compensation scheme was to become applicable as of 18 June 2014. This statute was to introduce compensation on the basis of a lump sum for each month of the “erasure” and the possibility of claiming additional compensation. This solution appeared to be appropriate.

Lastly, in the context of systemic, structural or similar violations, the potential inflow of future cases was also an important consideration in terms of preventing the accumulation of repetitive cases. Moreover, there were currently some 65 cases involving more than 1,000 applicants pending before the Court. It was therefore decided that the examination of other similar applications should be adjourned pending the adoption of the remedial measures at issue.

(See Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], 26828/06, 26 June 2012, Information Note 153)

 

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes