Communicated on 2 March 2014
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 69319/12
Ahmet HAJRUDINOVIĆ
against Slovenia
lodged on 22 October 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ahmet Hajrudinović, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Jesenice. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1 Labour proceedings
On 15 April 1998 the Kranj District Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the applicant’s employer, company S.
On 29 April 1998 the receiver in bankruptcy issued the applicant a decision that on the day of the introduction of the bankruptcy proceedings his employment contract had terminated.
Following the above mentioned decision, the applicant lodged his claim for redundancy payment in the bankruptcy proceedings. The receiver disputed the applicant’s claim and hence the Kranj District Court on 11 September 1998 instructed the applicant to institute labour proceedings in respect of his claim.
On 21 December 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Labour and Social Court.
On 14 July 2003, after no progress had been made in the applicant’s case, the parties settled their case before the Labour and Social Court, by company S. acknowledging the applicant’s claim in the amount of SIT 723,925.
2. Proceedings concerning a claim for damage on account of the alleged delays in the above proceedings
On 13 July 2006 the applicant lodged a claim for damages occurred to the applicant due to undue delay of the labour proceedings.
On 27 September 2007 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that Section 25 of the 2006 Act on Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja — “the 2006-Act”), was not applicable to the present case, since that provision only applied to cases where the individual had already lodged an application on account of the length of proceedings before an international court. On the other hand, applying the general rules of the 2001 Code of Obligations (Obligacijski zakonik) on pecuniary damages, it concluded that since the applicant’s case had been resolved by a settlement between the parties the applicant failed to prove that any damage had occurred and that there was also no causal link between the conduct of the court and the damage allegedly sustained. The applicant appealed.
On 9 January 2008 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court.
On 8 May 2008 the Ljubljana Local Court in a renewed set of proceedings again dismissed the applicant’s claim by concluding that the applicant had failed to prove any damage on account of delay in proceedings as well as no causal link between the delays and potential damage. The applicant appealed.
On 5 November 2008 the Ljubljana Higher court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 27 May 2010 the Constitutional Court granted the applicant’s constitutional appeal by referring to its decision in the case no. U-I-207/08 and Up-2168/08 from 18 March 2010 and remitted the case back to the higher court. It held that since the applicant’s situation had not been foreseen by the 2006 Act the applicant had been deprived from the effective legal remedy on account of the length of proceedings.
On 15 September 2010 the Ljubljana Higher Court remitted the case back to the first instance court.
On 25 October 2010 the Ljubljana Local Court, applying by analogy the provisions of the 2006 Act, dismissed the applicant’s claim. Referring to the case-law of the Court, it established that it had been reasonable that the Labour and Social Court had postponed examining the applicant’s claim and several others pending the outcome of some of the parallel “sample” cases, cases similar to the applicant’s, in respect of which a decision of the Constitutional Court (case no. U-I-138/00) on redundancy payments in companies in bankruptcy had been awaited. It dismissed in this respect as irrelevant the objections of the applicant that while this might have been the case, no formal decision on adjournment of his case had been issued, nor had he been otherwise informed that the labour court would postpone its examination of his case due to the proceedings pending before the Constitutional Court. It further held that it could not identify any unreasonable delays in respect of the proceedings in these so-called sample cases which took five years at three levels of jurisdiction, of which three were before the Constitutional Court. The applicant appealed.
On 13 April 2011 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a request for leave to file an appeal on points of law and constitutional appeal.
On 14 July 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to file an appeal on points of law.
On 8 May 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For relevant domestic law and practice, see Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, §§ 9-27, 6 October 2005 and Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, §§ 38-48.
In addition, in its decision no. U-I-207/08 and Up-2168/08 the Constitutional Court on 18 March 2010 declared Section 25 of the 2006 Act unconstitutional, in as far as it did not regulate the status of the injured parties who claimed just satisfaction before domestic courts due to a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay in respect of proceedings which had terminated before 1 January 2007, in the same manner as it regulated the status of persons who claimed just satisfaction before an international court. It ordered the National Assembly to remedy the established inconsistency and instructed that until the established inconsistency would be remedied, the courts should in respect of such cases apply the criteria set out in the respective provisions of the 2006 Act.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of labour proceedings and proceedings concerning his claim for non-pecuniary damage on account of the delays in labour proceedings. He further invokes Article 13, submitting that due to the length of proceedings concerning his claim for non-pecuniary damage also his right to an effective remedy in respect of the length of proceeding was violated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the labour proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Herbst v. Germany, no. 20027/02, § 78, 11 January 2007; Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000‑VII)?
2. Was the length of the proceedings concerning a claim for damage on account of the delays in the labour proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, CE.DI.SA Fortore S.N.C. Diagnostica Medica Chirurgica v. Italy, nos. 41107/02 and 22405/03, § 39, 27 September 2011)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 in respect of the labour proceedings as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy