THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 7161/03, 8414/03, 21186/03 and 16972/04
by Milena LAZAR and 3 Others
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 applications lodged on 17 February 2003, 22 February 2003, 26 June 2003 and 6 April 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having regard to Protocol No. 14,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are all Slovenian nationals.
2. Ms Milena Lazar was born in 1953 and lives in Koper. She was represented before the Court by Mr E. Dokič, a lawyer practising in Piran.
3. Mr Sreten Žerajić was born in 1934 and lives in Ljubljana. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Stijepović, a lawyer practising in Ptuj.
4. Ms Dragica Ostojić was born in 1955 and lives in Velenje. She had no representative before the Court.
5. Mr Albin Čižman was born in 1937 and lives in Ljubljana. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Senica, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.
6. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
7. For detailed information regarding the domestic proceedings at issue, see the appendix.
8. As regards application no. 7161/03 (Lazar v. Slovenia) it is noted that the applicant was a party in enforcement proceedings stemming from a loan agreement she had concluded with a bank. Upon an objection lodged by the applicant the case was examined in the framework of regular civil proceedings, where the enforcement decision was upheld at all levels of jurisdiction, despite her attempts to challenge it.
9. As regards application no. 8414/03 (Žerajić v. Slovenia) it is noted that the applicant's claim in the domestic proceedings concerned his eviction from an apartment, to which he had been entitled as an army officer before the independence of Slovenia, but afterwards lost the entitlement. The domestic proceedings were instituted by the Ministry of Defence, seeking the applicant's eviction. The court upheld the Ministry's claim and ordered an eviction. Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on all levels of jurisdiction. The case was finally resolved with the Constitutional Court's decision, whereby his constitutional complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Relevant domestic law
10. For relevant domestic law see the Court's decisions Carević v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 17314/03, 3 June 2008)) and Pohlen v. Slovenia ((dec.), 28457/03, 3 June 2008).
COMPLAINTS
11. All applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings before the domestic courts. In substance, they also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
12. The applicant Mr Žerajić complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts' decisions had caused him constant fear of being evicted from his apartment. For this reason, his right to respect for his private and family life had been breached and he could not peacefully enjoy his property. Furthermore, he complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been treated in a discriminatory manner, based on his ethnic origins and his status as a member of the army forces. According to applicant, the actions of the Slovenian authorities had caused him suffering amounting to torture, prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the State had retroactively interfered with his property rights. As regards his length of proceedings complaint, the applicant sought, in addition to non-pecuniary damage, also compensation for pecuniary damage concerning the rent he had to pay during the period of the pending proceedings.
13. The applicant Ms Lazar complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings, claiming that the domestic courts had rendered wrong decisions. She also complained that her debt increased due to interest and requested pecuniary damage in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
14. The applicant Ms Ostojić complained of a breach of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 and 7 § 1 of the Convention without further specifying her complaints.
15. The applicant Mr Čižman complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions had been violated by the courts' decision not to return the whole property in natura in the framework of denationalisation proceedings. The applicant submitted that the compensation awarded for that part of the denationalised property was too low. According to him, this also amounted to a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.
16. In addition, the same applicant invoked Article 13 of the Convention in connection with the alleged breach of the right to a fair trial, claiming that he had no effective legal remedy at his disposal for safeguarding his rights.
THE LAW
1. Complaint about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
17. The Court notes that the Government initially refused to apply section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) in the present cases. However, further to the communication of the cases by the Court under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, settlement proposals acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within reasonable time were sent to the applicants. The applicants were offered compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Subsequently, the applicants were in a position either to accept the proposals or to lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act. In this connection, the Court notes that the above mentioned claim has been considered by the Court to constitute an 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).
18. The Court notes that all the applicants refused to accept the settlement proposals. The applicant Ms Ostojić then lodged a claim for just satisfaction and the ensuing proceedings are still pending. The remaining three applicants did not avail themselves of this remedy.
19. The Court finds that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. Complaint of lack of effective remedies
20. As far as Mr Žerajić's and Ms Lazar's complaint concerning the pecuniary damage is concerned, the Court notes that the applicants lost their cases in the civil proceedings (see paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 13 above). They cannot therefore claim to sustain pecuniary damage as a result of the length of proceedings. This complaint must accordingly be rejected for being manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
21. As regards the remaining part of the complaints under Article 13, that is the part concerning non-pecuniary damage, the Court has found above (see paragraph 17 above) that the 2006 Act affords the applicants an effective remedy in this respect. This part of the applications is likewise manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. Remaining complaints
22. 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 the remaining complaints submitted by the applicants do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that they are 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 join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Stanley NaismithElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Application no.
Applicant's name
Date of introduction of
domestic proceedings
Subject matter
First-instance authority
and
the date of decision
Second- instance authority
and
the date of decision
Date of the Supreme Court's decision
Date of the Constitutional Court's decision
1.
7161/03
Milena LAZAR
8 April 1997
Compensation of damages
Koper District Court,
31 January 2000
Koper Higher Court,
20 March 2001
14 February 2002
30 September 2002
2.
8414/03
Sreten ŽERAJIĆ
28 June 1994, the date of coming into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia
Civil proceedings concerning eviction
Ljubljana District Court,
6 February 2003
Ljubljana Higher Court,
14 January 2004
30 March 2004
12 January 2005
3.
21186/03
Dragica OSTOJIĆ
24 June 1996
Labour dispute
Celje Labour Court,
1 March 1999
Ljubljana Higher Labour Court,
14 December 2000
16 December 2003
8 December 2004
4.
16972/04
Albin ČIŽMAN
28 June 1994, the date of coming into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia
Civil proceedings concerning compensation for denationalised property
Ljubljana District Court,
23 October 1995
Ljubljana Higher Court,
11 September 1996
9 January 2002
30 September 2003
Ljubljana District Court,
3 April 1997
Ljubljana Higher Court,
28 October 1998
Ljubljana District Court,
19 April 1999
Ljubljana Higher Court,
20 September 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy