FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF
STOJC v. SLOVENIA
(Application no.
20159/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2012
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 Stojc v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Dean Spielmann, President,
Mark Villiger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika Nußberger,
André Potocki, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 20159/06) 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, Ms Ana Stojc (“the applicant”), on 3 May
2006.
The applicant was
represented by Ms J. Jazbinšek - Goričan, a lawyer practising in Celje. 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 she was a party was excessive. In substance, she also complained that
there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of
the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
On 11 February 2009 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 4 October 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).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was
born in 1930 and lives in Ljubečna.
On 14 February
2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her brother before the
Ljubljana District Court seeking the reimbursement of costs for taking care of
their mother, which in accordance with a signed agreement was a shared
responsibility of both.
On 8 July 2000 the first-instance court held an
opening hearing.
On 3 October 2002 a hearing was held and a
judgment delivered. The applicant’s request was rejected. She appealed.
On 22 January 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court
delivered a judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 29 May 2003 a hearing was cancelled on the request
of the applicant.
Between 16 June 2003 and 6 October 2003 two
hearings were held. At the last hearing the first-instance court delivered a
judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. An appeal was lodged.
On 2 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court
delivered a judgment upholding the first-instance judgment in part and remitting
the question on the amount of interests for re-examination.
On 5 July 2005 a hearing was cancelled on the
request of the applicant, since the defendant had paid the amount due.
On 12 July 2005 the first-instance court issued
a decision on partial withdrawal of the claim and on the amount of costs of proceedings.
An appeal was lodged.
On 6 October 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court
upheld the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 10 November 2005.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
16. For relevant domestic law see judgment Ribič v.
Slovenia (no. 20965/03, 19 October 2010, §19).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1
AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the proceedings to
which she was a party had been excessively long. She 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 present case concerns
proceedings that were terminated before the 2006 Act came into force and the
effectiveness of remedies, in particular of the “just satisfaction claim”
provided by section 25 of the Act on the Protection
of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”),
implemented on 1 January 2007. The case is thus similar to the case Ribič
v. Slovenia (no. 20965/03, 19 October 2010). In
that case the Court found that the legal remedies at the applicant’s
disposal were ineffective (ibid., §§ 37-42).
The Court finds that the Government have not
submitted any convincing arguments which would require the Court to distinguish
the present case 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 14 February 2000 and ended on 10 November 2005, when the second-instance
court’s decision was served on the applicant.
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, Bastič v.
Slovenia, no. 75809/01, §§ 16-18, 6 April 2006; Bizjak
Jagodič v. Slovenia, no. 42274/02, §§ 16-18, 6 April 2006 and
Rodič v. Slovenia, no. 38528/02, §§
18-20, 27 April 2006) the Court considers that the length of the
proceedings, which lasted more than five years and eight months at two levels
of jurisdiction 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).
The Court recalls the case of Ribič v.
Slovenia (see paragraph 19 above) and
notes that the Government have not submitted any convincing arguments which
would require it to distinguish the present application from the aforementioned
case. The Court therefore 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 her right to have her
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 8,000 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 her
EUR 4,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 1,902.72 for
costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court. This claim was
supported by itemised list of expenses 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, who was represented by a lawyer, the full sum claimed under this head, namely EUR 1,900.
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
1. Declares unanimously the application
admissible;
2. Holds by six votes to one that there has
been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds by six votes to one that there has
been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds by six votes to one
(a) that the respondent State is to pay within
three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,900 (one thousand nine hundred 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;
5. Dismisses
unanimously the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified
in writing on 18 October 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean
Spielmann
Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and
Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Power-Forde is
annexed to this judgment.
D.S.
C.W.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE POWER-FORDE
I disagree with the majority’s finding of a violation of the
applicant’s right to a trial within ‘reasonable time’. In my separate opinion
in Barišič v. Slovenia (32600/05) I have set out the reasons
why I cannot accept the Court’s current ‘broad brush’ approach to ‘length of
proceedings’ claims.
For the reasons set out therein and absent a detailed
consideration of what, in fact, transpired at national level and in the light
of such facts as can be ascertained from the judgment, I cannot agree that
there has been any violation of the Convention.
