FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KRALJ v. SLOVENIA
(Application no. 21313/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 April 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kralj v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 21313/06) 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, Mr Alojz Kralj (“the applicant”), on 14 April 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr J. Vrviščar, a lawyer practising in Kamnik. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which he was a party was excessive. In substance, he also complained that there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
4. On 19 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 30 September 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). In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. On 8 November 1993 A.D. brought an action against the applicant in the Kamnik Local Court. She sought that the applicant ceases to use her plot of land for other reasons than for his right of passage.
6. On 27 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against A.D., seeking that she removes her car blocking the passage to his outbuildings. Both proceedings were joined.
7. On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect to Slovenia.
8. In 1995 the case was reassigned following the restructuring of the courts.
9. On 21 June 1996 a hearing was held.
10. On 5 November 1996 a hearing was held where both parties requested for it to be postponed, since there were talks of reaching a settlement.
11. On 10 January 1997 the first-instance court sent an inquiry to the parties about the developments regarding the settlement. They did not respond.
12. Between 16 March 1999 and 18 October 1999 three hearings were held.
13. On 8 October 1999 the first-instance court delivered a written judgment, partly upholding both claims, the applicant’s and A.D.’s. Both parties appealed.
14. On 31 January 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal but upheld A.D.’s appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
15. On 15 May 2001 a hearing was held.
16. Two hearings scheduled for 28 August 2001 and 27 September 2001 were rescheduled on the request of the applicant due to his illness.
17. At the end of January 2002 the case was reassigned to a new judge.
18. On 31 May 2004 a hearing was held.
19. On 27 July 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
20. On 23 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and again remitted the case for re-examination.
21. On 15 November 2005 the Kamnik Local Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
22. On 24 May 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. That decision was served on the applicant on 18 July 2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
23. For relevant domestic law see judgment Ribič v. Slovenia (no. 20965/03, 19 October 2010, §19).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
24. The applicant complained that the proceedings to which he was a party had been excessively long. He 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 ...”
25. 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
26. 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 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).
27. 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.
28. 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
29. The period to be taken into consideration began on 28 June 1994, the date the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, and ended on 18 July 2006, when the second-instance court decision of 24 May 2006 was served on the applicant.
30. 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).
31. The Court observes that there had indeed been two periods during the proceedings where the applicant did play a role in the delays. At the early stages of the proceedings a hearing had been postponed on the request of both parties in the light of the possibility of reaching a settlement (see paragraphs 10-12). And later on, two hearings were postponed on his request for medical reasons (see paragraph 16). The time attributable to the applicant therefore amounts to two years and approximately five months.
32. With respect to the conduct of the domestic courts, the Court notes that regardless of the prospects of a settlement among the parties it took the first-instance court more than four years to deliver the first judgment (see paragraphs 6 and 13 above). Furthermore, after the first remittal it took the first-instance court again more than four years to deliver a judgment and there had been a period of complete inactivity for over two years (see paragraphs 17-18 above).
33. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, Vidic v. Slovenia, no. 54836/00, §§ 17‑24, 3 August 2006; Kračun v. Slovenia, no. 18831/02, §§ 57-60, 30 November 2006 and Korda v. Slovenia, no. 25195/02, 30 November 2006, §§ 30-33) the Court considers that length of the proceedings, which lasted almost ten years at two levels of jurisdiction, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
34. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
2. Article 13
35. 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).
36. The Court recalls its findings in the case of Ribič v. Slovenia (see paragraph 27 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 his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
37. 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.”
38. The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction although invited to do so. In these circumstances, the Court holds that there is no reason to award any sum under Article 41 of the Convention (see Ciucci v. Italy, no. 68345/01, § 33, 1 June 2006).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy