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!

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1959/07
Henrik PRIMC
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:

              Ann Power-Forde, President,
              Boštjan M. Zupancic,
              Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2006,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Henrik Primc, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Slovenija. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.

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 24 December 2000 the applicant instituted an administrative dispute challenging a decision of the Ministry of Education whereby his application for the professional certification exam for teachers was rejected.

On 8 April 2003 the Celje Administrative Court rendered a judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 18 August 2003 the Ministry of Education issued a decision rejecting his request. He instituted an administrative dispute on 3 October 2003.

On 13 January 2004 the Administrative Court rendered a judgment annulling the Ministry’s decision and remitting the case for re-examination. His request for exemption from costs and expenses was rejected. He lodged an appeal on points of law, complaining inter alia that the administrative court erroneously applied the legal provisions.

On 11 April 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal for lack of legal interest, since the case was remitted for re-examination lodging an appeal on points of law at that point was unjustified and premature.

B.  Relevant domestic law

For relevant domestic law see Nezirovic v. Slovenia ((dec.) no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008) and Sirc v. Slovenia (no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard.

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 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) to the present case, stating that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time before the domestic courts had not been infringed. As a result, no settlement proposal was submitted to the applicant.

As to the first set of court proceedings the Court notes that the time to be taken into consideration started on 24 December 2000 and ended on 8 April 2003. The proceedings lasted for two years and three months at one level of jurisdiction, which can still be considered as reasonable. Subsequently, after a remittal, it took the Ministry of Education four months to issue a new decision, which cannot be considered as excessive.

As to the second set of court proceedings it is noted that the proceedings lasted for four years and four months at two levels of jurisdiction. In this connection the Court notes that the Administrative Court remitted the case for re-examination, and therefore upheld the applicant’s request. The applicant however still lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court, which was rejected for lack of legal interest since there was a remittal. This period (more than three years) cannot be attributable to the State as the applicant clearly availed himself of the wrong remedy and therefore unnecessarily protracted the proceedings. Having regard to the latter, the court notes that the proceedings lasted three months, which cannot be held as excessive.

Considering the above, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 6 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies before the lower administrative authorities the Court has already found that the General Administrative Procedure Act and the Administrative Disputes Act did provide the applicants with an effective remedy in respect of their complaint about the length of the proceedings before the lower administrative authorities (see Sirc v. Slovenia, cited above).

As to the complaints regarding the lack of effective remedies before the domestic courts 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 his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated.

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