THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17654/06
by Franc KRIŽMAN
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 June 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2006,
Having regard to the friendly settlement signed by the parties,
Having regard to Protocol No. 14,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Franc Križman, a Slovenian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Dol pri Ljubljani. He had no representative before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of proceedings (I Pg 367/2001)
On 28 March 2000 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings before the Maribor District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 17 May 2000 the first-instance court issued a writ of execution. The applicant lodged an objection.
On 16 August 2001 the first-instance court repealed the writ of execution and the case was sent for adjudication in regular civil proceedings.
On 22 February 2005 the Maribor District Court issued a judgment. An appeal was lodged.
On 27 February 2006 the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru) upheld the appeal in part and remitted the remainder for re-examination.
The proceedings terminated on 21 July 2006, after the debtor had settled the debt.
2. Second set of proceedings (I Pg 295/1998)
On 5 February 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 6 October 1997 the first-instance court issued a payment order. An objection was lodged.
On 5 April 2000 the Ljubljana District Court issued a judgment upholding the payment order. The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 October 2000. The applicant appealed.
On 26 March 2001 the Ljubljana District Court rejected the appeal for being lodged out of time. The applicant appealed.
The proceedings were stayed on 28 September 2001.
On 13 February 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) upheld the appeal regarding the procedural decision and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 22 May 2008 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal against the first-instance judgment of 5 April 2000 and remitted the case for re-examination.
The proceedings seem to be still pending at first-instance.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Nezirović v. Slovenia decision (no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings had been excessively long and under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
1. First set of proceedings (I Pg 367/2001)
The Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the application on 2 February 2010 (Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court), the applicant received the State Attorney's Office's settlement proposal of 26 March 2010 under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time as to the first set of proceedings and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. Further to the receipt of the applicant's reply, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted the settlement proposal. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that he wished to withdraw one part of his application introduced before the Court.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention in the relevant part reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant does not wish to pursue his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
2. Second set of proceedings (I Pg 295/1998)
As to the second set of proceedings, the Court notes that the proceedings were pending before the first-instance court when the 2006 Act became operational, and have subsequently continued for more than four months. It was therefore open or is still open to the applicant to effectively avail himself of the remedies provided under the 2006 Act. Thus, the complaint made under Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the second set of the proceedings should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complaint made under Article 13 as manifestly ill-founded (Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007) pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application in so far as it concerns the first set of the proceedings out of its list of cases,
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stanley NaismithElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy