THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 66824/01
by Ladislav LESAR
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 July 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ladislav Lesar, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana. He is represented before the Court by Mrs Mengus, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 June 1989 Š.B. (the plaintiff) brought proceedings before the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče) after an accident caused by the applicant, seeking damages. The accident occurred when the applicant, a pedestrian, acting under the influence of alcohol, struck the plaintiff, also a pedestrian.
Further, in another set of proceedings, on 18 April 1989 the Ljubljana Basic court awarded the plaintiff the indemnity she sought. She secured performance of that award.
On 17 June 1991 the Ljubljana Basic Court ruled in the plaintiff’s favour. On 21 November 1991 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče) granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered a re-trial.
On 23 March 1992 the Ljubljana Basic Court handed down a new judgement. Both parties appealed. On 24 November 1992 the Higher Court granted the appeals and the case was referred back to the first instance.
On 25 November 1993 the Basic Court ruled again in the plaintiff’s favour. On 2 February 1994 the Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. On 8 December 1994 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
In 1995, the applicant challenged that decision before the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče). On 16 January 1997 the latter annulled the lower courts’ decisions and returned the case to the first-instance court for a re-hearing.
In addition, on 10 April 1995 the applicant filed a request for the re-opening of the proceedings in the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče) (formerly Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče)). On 18 October 1995 the applicant requested the Court to speed up the proceedings.
On 4 April 1996 the plaintiff filed a reply. On 18 April 1994 the applicant filed the pleadings. On 9 May 1996 the plaintiff filed additional pleadings.
The hearings were held on 18 April and 13 May 1996. Further, the Court made several unsuccessful attempts to serve various pleadings by the plaintiff on the applicant. The mail was returned to sender on 5 April, 17 April and 13 May 1996.
On 13 May 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court granted the applicant’s request and annulled the previous judgements. On 4 July 1996 the applicant again requested the Court to speed up the proceedings.
On 22 and 23 July 1996 both parties appealed. On 11 September 1996 the Higher Court rejected both appeals and upheld the Local Court’s decision.
On 5 March 1998 and 10 January 2000 the applicant filed hierarchical appeals.
In addition, both parties filed several pleadings. The Court unsuccessfully tried to serve various pleadings by the plaintiff on the applicant. These were returned to sender on 5 November, 29 November 1999 and 23 February 2000.
On 23 January 2001 the Court appointed an expert and several witnesses were heard. On 20 November 2002 the Ljubljana Local Court handed down an interim judgement.
The applicant appealed. On 11 June 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. On 21 July 2003 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
On 20 August 2003 the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court, before the Supreme Court had reached its decision on the appeal on points of law. On 30 September 2003 the applicant filed additional pleadings.
The proceedings before the Supreme and Constitutional Courts are presumably still pending.
Since the final judgment has not yet been rendered, the proceedings are also still pending in the Ljubljana Local Court.
COMPLAINTS
1. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. He also alleges a violation of Article 13, claiming that no effective remedies were available to him before the domestic fora.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the indemnity proceedings since the State allegedly refused to execute the Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 January 1997 in his favour and about the arbitrariness of the domestic decisions. It appears that he also complained about the allegedly inefficient system for indemnification of parties winning their cases before the Constitutional Court.
THE LAW
1. Concerning the complaint under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the proceedings before the domestic courts are protracted and that no effective remedy lies.
Article 6 provides as far as relevant:
“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...”
Article 13 reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court considers that it cannot determine the admissibility of the complaints. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
2. In addition, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the indemnity proceedings.
The Court notes that the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. The Court recalls that such allegations should be examined in the light of all the circumstances of the case. Therefore, this part of the application is premature. The Court finds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
This part of application should therefore be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the length of proceedings and the effectiveness of the domestic remedies;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy