Communicated on 17 November 2014
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 66433/13
DRUŠTVO ZA VARSTVO UPNIKOV
against Slovenia
lodged on 16 October 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Društvo za varstvo upnikov, is a Slovenian association with its seat in Maribor. It is represented before the Court by Odvetniška Pisarna Mayr & Pavlovič, a law firm practising in Ptuj.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant association, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background of the case
The applicant association was founded in August 1996 by a large group of individuals who were amongst the clients of the private non-banking investment company Z. They had all made financial investments in the company which failed to meet its contractual obligations. The purpose of establishing the applicant association was to pursue the joint interests of the individuals who sustained losses due to the conduct of the company Z.
Following the formation of the applicant association, 1,484 individuals transferred their claims against the company Z. to the applicant association in order to authorise it to institute proceedings in respect of their claims.
2. The civil proceedings
On 18 March 1997 the applicant association instituted proceedings against the two owners of the company Z. in respect of the claims of the above-mentioned 1,484 individuals before the Maribor District Court. The joint claim amounted to 2,419,344,368.60 Slovenian tolars (SIT, approximately 10,095,745 euros (EUR)).
On 22 September 1998 the applicant association lodged a request for an interlocutory measure in respect of the property of the defendants.
On 3 May 1999 the Maribor District Court upheld the request and issued the interlocutory order. The defendants objected.
On 7 March 2002 the Maribor District Court upheld in part the objection. All parties appealed.
On 2 September 2003 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeals in part and modified the interlocutory order accordingly.
Between May 1998 and July 2003 the applicant association repeatedly requested the court to schedule a hearing and requested the case to be given priority. It emphasised that due to the duration of the proceedings some claims might become time-barred.
On 13 November 2003 the Maribor District Court held the first main hearing and decided to appoint a financial expert.
On 21 February 2007 the applicant association lodged a supervisory appeal.
On 29 May 2007 and 8 June 2007 the Maribor District Court held further two hearings. On the latter date it issued its decision upholding the applicant association’s claim for the amount of EUR 9,855,235.19. The second defendant appealed.
On 6 August 2008 the Maribor Higher Court dismissed the second defendant’s appeal.
3. Proceedings concerning a claim for damage on account of the alleged delays in the above proceedings
On 18 March 2008, after the judgment in respect of the first defendant became final, the applicant association lodged an application for settlement with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings with the State Attorney’s Office, as foreseen by the 2006 Act on Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), claiming EUR 50,075.11 for non-pecuniary damage.
On 28 May 2008 the applicant association amended its application for pecuniary damages and raised the amount of compensation claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damages to EUR 74,200.
On 29 January 2009, following the finality of the judgment in respect of the second defendant, the applicant association requested the additional sum of EUR 74,200 for non-pecuniary damage.
On 27 February 2009, following unsuccessful negotiations with the State Attorney’s Office, the applicant association lodged a claim with the Maribor District Court seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 74,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 158,136 for pecuniary damages incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings as far as the length in respect of the first defendant in the main proceedings was concerned.
On 18 September 2009 the Maribor District Court disjoined the proceedings in respect of the pecuniary damages from the proceedings in respect of non-pecuniary damages, referring the latter to the Celje Local Court.
On 3 March 2011 the Celje Local Court awarded the applicant association compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of EUR 2,880.
On 15 March 2011 the applicant association lodged an appeal. In the appeal it argued, inter alia, that the court should have taken into account the fact that the proceedings in questions actually concerned 1,484 individual claims which were joined solely to facilitate faster proceedings. It further argued that the ceiling of EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damages, as provided for in the 2006 Act, could not be considered sufficient in respect of the length of the present proceedings.
On 12 October 2011 the Celje Higher Court upheld the applicant association’s appeal in part and raised the amount of compensation to EUR 4,500.
On 29 December 2011 the applicant association lodged a constitutional appeal and a motion for review of the constitutionality of Section 16 of the 2006 Act, challenging the EUR 5,000 ceiling.
On 23 April 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected both, the constitutional appeal and the motion for review of constitutionality of Section 16 of the 2006 Act.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law is exposed in Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant association complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted unduly long. It maintains that it is still a victim of the alleged violation since it has not been awarded sufficient compensation. It argues that in awarding compensation for length of proceedings, the domestic courts should have taken into account that it was actually representing 1,484 private individuals, and that the right to a trial within reasonable time was violated in respect of all its members. It highlighted that when divided between its members, the compensation in the present case amounted only to EUR 3.03 per member.
2. The applicant association also complains that the remedies available for excessive length of proceedings in Slovenia were ineffective in its case, since the EUR 5,000 ceiling for compensation for non-pecuniary damages as provided for by the 2006 Act cannot be considered as sufficient and appropriate.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Taking into account the acknowledgment of a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement and the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant association, can the latter still claim to be a “victim” of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?
2. If so, was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Assuming that the answer to question no. 1 is affirmative, did the applicant association have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 6 § 1 in respect of the length of the civil proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, does the ceiling of EUR 5,000 for compensation for non-pecuniary damage to be awarded under the 2006 Act, in the circumstances of the present case comply with the standards established by the case-law of the Court (see, in particular, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 201, 210, ECHR 2006‑V)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy