FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2127/08
Ljubica ĐURIČIĆ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 December 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2007,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ljubica Đuričić, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Kranj. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Krainer, a lawyer practising in Radovljica.
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.
On 13 January 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against Medical Center Ljubljana before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained as a consequence of the medical treatment received following a gallbladder surgery.
Between 11 February 2002 and 3 September 2003 the court held four hearings and appointed three experts.
At the last hearing the court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request in whole. She appealed.
On 20 October 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The judgment was served on the applicant on 16 May 2007. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 19 October 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as lodged out of time.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. She further complained that the proceedings were unfair and that the Slovenian legal system does not provide for legal protection in cases of medical errors.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates at the outset that, according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with an individual application lodged with it after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to generally recognised rules of international law, and within six months of the date on which the final decision has been taken.
In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant failed to properly exhaust the domestic remedies since her constitutional appeal was rejected as lodged out of time.
Given that the applicant’s constitutional appeal was rejected for procedural reasons, the applicant therefore failed to properly exhaust domestic remedies as far as the complaint concerning the alleged unfairness is concerned.
As to the length of proceedings, the date on which the proceedings in question ended corresponds to the date of the Supreme Court decision of 12 April 2007, which was served on the applicant on 16 May 2007. Thus, in this respect, the application lodged on 27 November 2007 does not comply with the six months’ time limit.
It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy