THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 39002/05, 15884/06, 23043/06, 25937/06, 28373/06, 37050/06, 38615/06, 41353/06, 41362/06, 43992/06, 44405/06, 45619/06 and 50592/06
by Martina LAMPREHT and 12 others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants except Mr L. Gaši are all nationals of Slovenia (see the attached appendix). The applicant Mr L. Gaši is a national of Serbia.
The applicants Ms Lampreht, Ms Poteko and Mr Gaši were represented before the Court by Mrs M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Mr Turina, Ms Turina and Mr Kavčnik were represented by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practising in Medvode. Mr Valentinčič was represented by Mr L. Benigar Tošič, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The applicants Mr and Ms Žagar were represented by Ms M. Krainer, a lawyer practising in Radovljica. Mr Zabukovnik was represented by Mr F. Repnik, a lawyer practising in Celje. Mr Tojnko was represented by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. Mr. Modrijančič was represented by Mr A. Fijavž, a lawyer practising in Celje. Ms Ibrišič was represented by Mr J. Žorž, a lawyer practising in Koper. The applicant Ms Miklič was not represented before the Court.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicants were parties to proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Journal, No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) became operational on 1 January 2007.
Section 25 lays down the following transitional rules in relation to applications already pending before the Court:
Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained prior to implementation of this Act
“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party has made a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney’s Office shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within four months of the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney’s Office within two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State Attorney’s Office. The State Attorney’s Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within a period of four months at the latest.....
(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney’s Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four months of the date on which the party made its proposal, the party may lodge a claim [for just satisfaction] with the competent court under this Act. The party may lodge a claim within six months of receiving the State Attorney’s Office reply that the party’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney’s Office to decide whether to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).
THE LAW
In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the applications under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court, all the applicants received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposals under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage (see the appendix). It further notes that the applicants have since then been in a position to either negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that would be unsuccessful, lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008, and Kešelj and 6 others v. Slovenia (dec.), nos. 20674/05, 20680/05, 28380/05, 28441/05, 38861/05, 39198/05 and 44915/05, 19 May 2009).
The Court reiterates 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
...
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
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.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the applications as far as they concern length of proceedings and that they should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore the case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of Birth
Address
Date of Introduction
Date of settlement proposal or agreement signed by the State Attorney
1.
39002/05
Martina LAMPREHT
1956
Slovenske Konjice
13/10/2005
16/02/2009
2.
15884/06
Ivana POTEKO
1963
Griže
09/03/2006
01/09/2009
3.
23043/06
Marjan TURINA
Bogdana TURINA
1953
1955
Dobravlje
04/05/2006
19/05/2009
4.
25937/06
Jože VALENTINČIČ
1946
Ljubljana
05/06/2006
12/06/2009
5.
28373/06
Dunja MIKLIČ
1957
Trebnje
12/06/2006
29/05/2009
6.
37050/06
Latif GAŠI
1962
Klina,
Serbia
05/09/2006
16/09/2009
7.
38615/06
Milan Bogdan ŽAGAR
1936
Brežice
15/09/2006
13/08/2009
8.
41353/06
Tadej ZABUKOVNIK
1983
Polzela
29/09/2006
16/09/2009
9.
41362/06
Jurij KAVČNIK
1975
Brezovica pri Ljubljani
29/09/2006
29/07/2009
10.
43992/06
Jožefa ŽAGAR
1939
Brežice
15/09/2006
13/08/2009
11.
44405/06
Zvonimir TOJNKO
1966
Celje
18/09/2006
10/09/2009
12.
45619/06
Branko MODRIJANČIČ
1960
Ljubljana
28/09/2006
23/07/2009
13.
50592/06
Emira IBRIŠIČ
1955
Izola
29/11/2006
10/06/2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy