FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18586/08
Janko KOLAR
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 February 2014 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 18 February 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Janko Kolar, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Maribor. He was represented before the Court by Odvetniška družba Čeferin, a law firm practising in Grosuplje.
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.
On 4 April 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia before the Ljubljana District Court. He claimed compensation for damages allegedly sustained due to a decision of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning issued on 23 October 1991 to reopen the proceedings concerning the location and construction permit for a hydroelectric power plant the applicant had been planning to build. The reopened proceedings terminated on 17 May 1994 when the applicant was served with the decision of the Ministry granting him the location and construction permit.
Hearings were held on 3 February 2003, 13 March 2003 and 19 June 2003. On the latter date the Ljubljana District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed.
On 20 October 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on the points of law.
On 10 May 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on the points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 10 December 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law
For relevant domestic law, see the judgments Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009) and Tomažič v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007).
THE LAW
1. Complaints under Articles 6 (length of proceedings) and 13 of the Convention
The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had offered the applicant a settlement as regards the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the Government with regard to his complaints under Articles 6 (length of proceedings) and 13 of the Convention and that he wished to withdraw this part of the application in respect of his claim for non-pecuniary damages but that he maintained his claim for pecuniary damages.
The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties, in which the State Attorney's Office acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offered to pay compensation to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage, the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant wished to withdraw his application in the part concerning his complaints about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. It observes however that the applicant still considers himself to be a victim, as he claims to have also sustained pecuniary damage on account of the length of proceedings, for which he had not been compensated. As regards the latter, the Court notes that there is no causal link between excessive length of proceedings subject to the application and the losses claimed by the applicant.
Therefore, and since the applicant has signed the aforementioned settlement agreement by which the State paid him compensation for non-pecuniary damage, whose adequacy he does not call into question, the Court finds that he can no longer claim to be a victim.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2. Other complaints
The applicant also invoked Article 3 of the Convention with regard to the alleged torture he suffered as a consequence of the proceedings, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention with regard to the alleged interference with his property rights.
Having regard to all 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
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy