FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 15828/06, 6126/07 and 15692/07
by Štefanija AVGUŠTIN and Others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 August 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are all Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia.
Also Mr Jožef Vincencij Vrešak was a Slovenian national who lived in Slovenia. He was represented before the Court by Ms B. Zidar, a lawyer practicing in Celje. He died on 20 December 2006, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 16 December 2010 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s heirs Mr Boris Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. Like the applicant, also his heirs, who all live in Slovenia, were represented before the Court by Ms B. Zidar, a lawyer practicing in Celje. The applicants Ms Štefanija Avguštin, Mr Vojko Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak and Mr Roman Vrešak, who lodged the application together with Mr Jožef Vincencij Vrešak, were also represented before the Court by Ms B. Zidar, a lawyer practicing in Celje.
Ms Marija Kolar was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practicing in Medvode. Ms Milena Lazar was represented before the Court by Mr E. Dokič, a lawyer practicing in Piran.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicants were parties to domestic proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.
For details concerning each particular case see the attached annex.
B. Relevant domestic law
For the relevant domestic law see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
The applicant Ms Milena Lazar also complained in substance under Article 6 § 1 that she did not have a fair trial in that she did not succeed with her claims in the domestic proceedings, in which she sought a loan agreement with a bank establishing a mortgage on her apartment to be declared null and void.
THE LAW
A. Legal standing of Mr Boris Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar
The Court must first examine whether Mr Boris Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar have legal standing to pursue the application originally lodged by the applicant Mr Jožef Vincencij Vrešak, who died on 20 December 2006, in the course of the proceedings before the Court.
On 16 December 2010 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Mr Boris Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. To this end, she enclosed the documents certifying that they were the applicant’s heirs by law. Subsequently, the Government offered a friendly settlement, in addition to the applicants, also to Mr Boris Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar.
In various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008, Trnovšek v. Slovenia (dec.), 20844/03, 1 June 2010 and Dreo v. Slovenia (dec.) 3248/07, 5 October 2010). The Court would also point out that the applicant’s legal successor does not need to be himself the victim of the alleged violation of a human right, but that he may continue the application before the Court in the applicant’s stead (see, e.g., Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000).
Regard being had to the fact that Mr Boris Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar were confirmed under national law as the applicant’s heirs, the Court considers that they have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the applicant’s stead. The Court accordingly continues to examine at their request the application in the part concerning the applicant Mr Jožef Vincencij Vrešak.
B. Complaints about the length of the proceedings under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
In the present cases the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of the Court, all the applicants, as well as the heirs of the deceased applicant Mr Jožef Vincencij Vrešak, received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposals under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage (see the attached annex). It further notes that the applicants have since been in a position either to negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that should be unsuccessful, to lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008).
The Court reiterates Article 37 of the Convention, which in the relevant part reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
...
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the applications in the part concerning the complaints about undue length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention and that they should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c).
C. Remaining complaints
As far as the complaints of Ms Milena Lazar under Article 6 § 1 are concerned, the Court notes from the outset that all the procedural guarantees ensuring a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal had been respected throughout the proceedings, that the applicant was fully able to state her case, that she was represented by a lawyer, that she had a public hearing at first instance, and that the courts’ decisions were satisfactorily reasoned, with no appearance of arbitrariness whatsoever. Ultimately, the Court observes that the applicant merely objects to the outcome of the proceedings and criticises the way in which the domestic courts assessed the facts of the case. Her complaints are therefore of a fourth-instance nature and should therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides that Mr Boris Vrešak, Mr Bojan Vrešak, Ms Štefanija Vrešak, Ms Alojzija Vrešak and Ms Jožica Rehar, the heirs of the applicant Mr Jožef Vincencij Vrešak, have standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead;
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases, including the part of the application no. 15692/07 concerning complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application no. 15692/07.
Stephen PhillipsGanna Yudkivska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Annex
No.
Application No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of Birth
Address
Date of Introduction
Date of settlement proposal or agreement signed by the State Attorney
1.
15828/06
Štefanija AVGUŠTIN
Vojko VREŠAK
Bojan VREŠAK
Roman VREŠAK
Jožef Vincencij VREŠAK deceased; the application continued in the applicant’s stead by:
1934
1953
1956
1964
1936
Rogatec
Velenje
Podčetrtek
Podčetrtek
Šmarje pri Jelšah
13/03/2006
07/10/2009
Boris VREŠAK
Bojan VREŠAK
Alojzija VREŠAK
Štefanija VREŠAK
Jožica REHAR
1963
1956
1934
1964
1969
Rogatec
Rogatec
Rogatec
Slovenske Konjice
Rogaška Slatina
14/03/2011
2.
6126/07
Marija KOLAR
1962
Trbovlje
28/12/2006
01/02/2011
3.
15692/07
Milena LAZAR
1953
Koper
24/03/2007
26/01/2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy