FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27229/06
Janez ČERČE and Jožef ČERČE
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 June 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 5 June 2006,
Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Janez Čerče and Mr Jožef Čerče, are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1934 and 1957, respectively, and live in Maribor. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Pipuš, a lawyer practising in Maribor. 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.
In 1988 the applicants’ father instituted proceedings before the Maribor Basic Court requesting the determination of property rights and the exclusion of the disputed property from the inheritance. In 1991 their father died and the applicants continued the domestic proceedings as his heirs.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 16 May 2003 the Maribor District Court issued a judgment upholding the applicants’ request. An appeal was lodged challenging the amount of costs.
On 2 December 2003 the Maribor Higher Court remitted the case for re‑examination.
On 15 September 2006 the Maribor District Court issued a judgment upholding the request. An appeal was lodged.
On 6 February 2007 the Maribor Higher Court issued a judgment modifying the first-instance judgment as regards costs. The judgment was served on the applicants on 7 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
The Court notes that a settlement was reached between the parties by which the Government acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and undertook to pay the applicants compensation with respect to non-pecuniary damages incurred as a result of the unreasonable length of proceeding. The Court however observes that the applicants still consider themselves to be victims as they claim to have also sustained pecuniary damage, for which they had not been compensated. As regards the latter, the Court notes that the losses claimed by the applicants have not been substantiated and that there is no causal link between the excessive length of the proceedings and the pecuniary damage alleged. Therefore and since the applicants have signed the aforementioned settlement agreement by which the State paid them compensation for non‑pecuniary damage, which adequacy they does not call into question, the Court finds that they can no longer claim to be victims.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy