FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10894/11
Rudi KLARIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 April 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Rudi Klarič, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Ig.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Vran, State Attorney.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his civil proceedings which started in 1994 and lasted fifteen years and eight months at four levels of jurisdiction. He further complained under Article 13 about the ineffectiveness of remedies in that connection.
He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings.
On 18 October 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party and the ineffectiveness of remedies in this respect. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23 April 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“With a view of resolving the dispute in question, the Government, under Rule 62A of the Rules of the Court, hereby makes a unilateral declaration, by which:
1. it admits a violation of the right to a trial within reasonable time as referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and a violation of the right to effective legal remedy as referred to in Article 13 of the Convention in the proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court, conducted initially under ref. no. P 1631/2004, which are the subject of the application of 9 February 2011, and
2. the Government proposes that the Court strike [out] the application of 9 February 2011 and [further] the Republic of Slovenia undertake to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 7,600 (in words: seven thousand six hundred euros). The amount includes the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The Republic of Slovenia is bound to pay the above amount within three months from the date of receipt of notification from the Court regarding the striking of the application [out of its list of cases] on the basis of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of any delay in payment, the Republic of Slovenia undertakes to pay, for the entire period of delay, simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
By a letter of 15 May 2015, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovenia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and the ineffectiveness of remedies in this connection (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/01, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 74, ECHR 2005‑X; Tomažič v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, § 54, 13 December 2007; and Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, § 59, 21 July 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaints.
2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant also complained about unfairness of the proceedings.
Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention related to the complaints about the duration of the proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention insofar as it is related to the above complaints;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015.
Milan BlaškoHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy