THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10909/03
by Tomislav KUHELJ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 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 21 March 2003,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to Protocol 14,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The application was lodged by Mr Tomislav Kuhelj, a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Dol pri Ljubljani. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant instituted two sets of labour proceedings in 1992, after his dismissal from the position of director of a company, seeking to quash the decision on temporary removal and the decision on termination of employment. He also sought reimbursement of the lost wages and benefits.
4. On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.
1. First set of proceedings (S 4185/92)
5. On 9 June 1999 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) gave a judgment quashing the decision on the temporary removal of the applicant from the company.
6. On 10 January 2001 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court gave a judgment quashing the decision of the Worker's Board on the dismissal of the applicant from the function of director of the company. An appeal was lodged.
7. On 6 February 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
8. Subsequently, the applicant sought the re-opening of the proceedings.
9. On 15 March 2006 the request for the re-opening was rejected. He appealed.
10. On 31 August 2006 the appeal was rejected. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
11. On 19 December 2006 the Supreme Court issued a decision rejecting the appeal.
2. Second set of proceedings (S 811/93)
12. On 24 October 1995 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court gave an interim judgment quashing the decision on termination of employment. The defending party lodged an appeal.
13. On 16 April 1998 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. An appeal on points of law was lodged.
14. On 2 March 1999 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law.
15. The proceedings regarding the pecuniary part of the claim continued before the first-instance court (see paragraph 3 above). On 20 October 2000 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued a decision on termination of proceedings regarding a part of the claim, further to the applicant's withdrawal. He appealed.
16. On 12 January 2001 the appeal was rejected.
17. On 15 January 2003 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued a decision dismissing the applicant's request and terminating the proceedings on the basis of the finding that the defending party, the company the applicant used to work for, had ceased to exist. The applicant appealed.
18. On 6 February 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. The second-instance court found that a legal successor of the company existed and the proceedings should continue.
19. On 17 June 2004 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court gave a judgment upholding the applicant's request in part. Both parties appealed.
20. On 23 June 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected both appeals. Both parties lodged an appeal on points of law.
21. On 29 June 2006 the Supreme Court rejected both appeals on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
22. On 17 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as unfounded.Other proceedings
23. It appears that the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against two journalists, which were terminated before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia, on 28 June 1994.
24. Moreover, on an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. On 9 November 2000 the investigating judge issued a decision on termination of the investigation.Relevant domestic law
25. A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Nezirović v. Slovenia decision (no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008).
COMPLAINTS
26. 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.
27. The applicant also complained under Article 6 about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. He claimed that he was unlawfully removed from the position of director of the company and that since in Slovenia legal chaos governed, justice was never served. He complained that the domestic courts' decisions were wrong and influenced by politics. He also complained that local newspapers wrote compromising articles about him. The applicant also requested pecuniary damages for the loss of income, together with default interest. Essentially, his request was the same as what he unsuccessfully requested in the domestic proceedings.
THE LAW
1. Complaint about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
28. On 23 October 2009 the President of the Chamber decided that the complaints regarding the length of the two sets of civil proceedings should be communicated to the Government for observations on its admissibility and merits.
29. On 12 February 2010 the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant.
30. By the settlement agreement signed by the State's Attorney's Office and the applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicant 3,760 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant accepted the amount as full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the two sets of civil proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of this complaint.
31. For his part, on 6 April 2010, the applicant informed the Court that he had reached a settlement with the State's Attorney's Office and that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court regarding the complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention.
32. The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, 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.”
33. The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter concerning the complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant does not wish to pursue his application. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of this part of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
34. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.Remaining complaints
35. As to the remaining complaints, in the light of all the 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 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention,
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stanley NaismithElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy