[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Milos BEVK v Slovenia - 46735/06 [2012] ECHR 354 (14 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/354.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 354

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no 46735/06
Miloš BEVK
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2006,

Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Miloš Bevk, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Škofja Loka. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

It would appear that a number of persons had financial claims against the applicant’s ex-wife. It also seems that the applicant’s ex-wife took out a mortgage on the house that she co-owned with the applicant. On an undetermined date in 1995 some creditors instituted enforcement proceedings against her and requested that her share of the house be sold at public auction.

On 25 July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Škofja Loka Local Court, claiming that his ex-wife had unlawfully taken out a mortgage on their common property. He requested the mortgage be declared null and void and the enforcement not to be allowed.

It seems that the case was at one point transferred to the Kranj District Court. On 12 July 2001 the court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the house was earlier divided in two equal shares and was thus no longer a common property. Further to the applicant’s appeal, the Ljubljana Higher Court partly quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 4 November 2004 the Kranj District Court again dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Higher Court upheld that decision.

The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law and a constitutional appeal. They were both dismissed.

The last decision in the case was issued on 15 January 2008.

THE LAW

A.  Complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention

The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the applicant as regards the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his complaints under Articles 6 and 13.

The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application in the part concerning his complaints about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application as far as it concerns the above complaints out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.

B.  Remaining complaints

The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts’ decisions amounted to a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases with regard to the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention (length of proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect);

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde
Deputy Registrar President