THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SEHUR v. SLOVENIA

(Application no. 42246/02)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG 

6 July 2006 

FINAL

06/10/2006

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 Sehur v. Slovenia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

MrJ. Hedigan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2006,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 42246/02) 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 six Slovenian nationals, Ms Terezija Sehur, Ms Mateja Sehur, Ms Metka Sehur, Ms Katja Sehur, Mr Jure Sehur and Ms Julijana Sehur (“the applicants”) on 29 November 2002.

2. The applicants was represented by the Verstovšek lawyers. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.

3. The applicants alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which they were a party was excessive. In substance, they also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).

4. On 15 September 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

THE FACTS

5. The applicants were born in 1968, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994 and 1932 respectively and live in Celje, except the last applicant who lives in Šentvid pri Planini.

6. The applicants are the wife, the children and the mother of J.S. who died in an accident at work on 22 July 1997. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.

7. On 7 July 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 13,093,982 tolars (approximately 54,550 euros).

Between 17 July 1998 and 17 October 2002 the applicants lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.

Between 4 March 1999 and 3 October 2001 they made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.

Of the six hearings held between 5 June 2001 and 12 November 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.

During the proceedings the court appointed an expert in electrical engineering. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 January 2003.

8. On 22 January 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). The applicants also requested the first-instance court to issue a supplement judgment because it had not yet rendered a ruling on all counts of the applicants’ claim. ZT cross-appealed.

On 3 September 2004 the first-instance court issued a supplementary judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 15 September 2004.

9. On 17 September 2004 the applicants appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.

On 16 March 2006 the court allowed all the appeals in part.

The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 April 2006.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The applicants complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. They 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...”

11. In substance, the applicants further complained that the remedies available