BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF MRAMOR v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 31391/05)
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 Mramor 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. 31391/05) 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 Janko
Mramor (“the applicant”), on 18 August 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer
practising in Medvode. The
Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent.
- 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
20 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
applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ig.
- On
9 May 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the
Ljubljana District Court (OkroZno sodišče v Ljubljani)
against two hunting clubs seeking damages in the amount of 557.20
euros sustained in a car accident, caused by a roe deer.
- Between
9 February 2001 and 31 August 2005 the applicant lodged four
preliminary written submissions and/or requests for a hearing.
- During
the proceedings the court appointed one expert and held three
hearings
- At
the last hearing, on 22 March 2007, the court delivered a judgment.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 April 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.
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 excessive 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
applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
- The
Court notes that the present application is 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 applicant's disposal
were ineffective (ibid., §§ 21–24).
- As
regards the instant case, the Court finds that the Government have
not submitted any convincing arguments which would require the Court
to distinguish it from the above-mentioned case.
- 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 9 May 2000, the day
the applicant instituted proceedings with the Ljubljana District
Court, and ended on 26 April 2007, the day the
first-instance judgment was served on the applicant. It therefore
lasted six years and eleven months at one level 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 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, 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 to hear a case 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 14-16 above) and having regard to
the fact that the arguments put forward by the Government have
already been rejected in the case of Maksimovič v. Slovenia
(cited above, §§ 29–30), 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 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
applicant claimed 9,500 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 4,800 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 275 for costs and expenses incurred in the
proceedings before the Court.
- The
Government did not comment on the applicant's claim.
- The
Court notes that although the applicant was reminded by the Court of
the requirements concerning just satisfaction claims set out in
Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court, he had neither itemised nor
substantiated his claims. The Court therefore makes no award 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, within three months of the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention EUR 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 18 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago
Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
