FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14503/04
by Suzana ČUČEK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 January 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 20 March 2004,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Suzana Čuček, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Miklavž. She was not represented before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Labour proceedings
On 26 November 1996 the applicant was discharged from the company Košaki TMI d.d. Maribor on the grounds of unjustified absence from work. The applicant lodged an objection with a special board responsible for employment matters within the company, claiming that her dismissal had been the result of discrimination as she had been a victim of sexual harassment from her supervisor. Her objection was dismissed on 27 December 1996. Her employment with Košaki TMI d.d. Maribor was thus terminated.
On 8 January 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against her ex-employer with the Maribor Labour Court, contesting the decision concerning termination of her employment. She also requested the court to order the payment of her wages pending the outcome of the proceedings.
On 10 February 2000 the court dismissed her claim. The applicant appealed. On 19 April 2001 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, which were both dismissed.
The last decision was served on the applicant on 7 January 2004.
2. Criminal proceedings II K 201/98
On 5 June 1998 the Maribor District Public Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against M.M. for sexual harassment by abuse of power.
On 16 March 1998 the Maribor Local Court heard the accused as well as the applicant and several witnesses.
By the letter of 30 August 2007 the Court requested the applicant to inform it about the state of these proceedings. Further to this request, the applicant contacted the Maribor District Public Prosecutor to learn about the status of the proceedings and she was informed that, on 26 July 2002, the Maribor Local Court had dismissed the bill of indictment as it had become statute barred. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 September 2007.
3. Criminal proceedings K 49/97-15
On an undetermined date in 1997 M.M. initiated criminal proceedings with the Maribor District Court against the applicant, accusing her of defamation. On 1 June 1998 the court terminated the proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Kešelj and 6 Others v. Slovenia decision (nos. 20674/05, 20680/05, 28380/05, 28441/05, 38861/05, 39198/05 and 44915/05, 19 May 2009).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of labour proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. In this connection, the applicant requested, in addition to non‑pecuniary damage, also compensation for the pecuniary damage which was allegedly sustained during the period of the pending proceedings. The applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention that the labour proceedings had not been fair and that her case had been treated discriminatorily. The applicant further alleged that the labour courts’ decisions had amounted to a violation of her right to respect for private and family life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings had lasted too long.
THE LAW
A. Complaints about the length of the labour 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 under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court, the applicant received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposal 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. It further notes that the applicant has since then been in a position to either negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that were to be unsuccessful, lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act. 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, and Kešelj and 6 others v. Slovenia, cited above).
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 application as far as it concerns the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy for claiming non-pecuniary damage sustained in that respect; therefore, this part of the application should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore the case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.
With regard to the applicant’s request for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the losses claimed by the applicant have not been substantiated and that there is no causal link between the allegedly excessive length of the labour proceedings and the damage alleged. This complaint must accordingly be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Remaining complaints
As to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the first set of criminal proceedings, the Court notes that, on 26 July 2002, the Maribor Local Court dismissed the bill of indictment as statute barred and the proceedings thus terminated. It seems that until the Court’s request of 30 August 2007, the applicant has never enquired about the state of these proceedings. Thus, nine years elapsed between the date the applicant was heard by the court and the date the applicant contacted the District Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant, as an aggrieved party, should have displayed a certain amount of diligence and initiative in informing herself about the progress made in the criminal proceedings and concludes, given that the application was lodged on 19 March 2004, that this part of the application is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six‑months’ rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
As to the second set of criminal proceedings, the Court notes that they terminated on 1 June 1998, which is more that six months before the date of lodging of the application. It follows that this complaint has also been introduced out of time and must likewise be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
As to the remaining complaints concerning Articles 6, 8 and 14, in the light of all the 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 about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in so far as the non-pecuniary damage is concerned;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy