FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52799/07
L.G.
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 November 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr L. G., was a Slovenian national, who was born in 1943 and lived in Naklo. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Franko, a lawyer practising in Škofljica. In the course of the proceedings, the applicant died. His widow A. G., and his children M. P. and A. G., declared that they wished to pursue his application before the Court. The Court decided not to disclose the applicant’s name (Rule 47 § 3).
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Until 2002 the applicant was working as a department director within a public institute R.
On 8 November 2001 a criminal complaint was lodged against the applicant and M. M. alleging abuse of office.
On 26 September 2005 the applicant was informed about the criminal complaint and questioned by the police.
On 5 January 2006 an article was published in newspaper D., mentioning that a criminal complaint had been lodged against the applicant.
On an undefined date the applicant’s response to the article of 5 January 2006 was published in which the applicant inter alia wrote that when he had been in 2005 invited to the police for questioning he was unaware of the criminal complaint.
On 19 October 2006 the Ljubljana District Public Prosecutor’s Office rejected the criminal complaint against the applicant and M. M. on grounds that no reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the alleged acts could have been established.
Following the rejection of the criminal complaint, the applicant tried to obtain access to the criminal file, in order to be able to institute proceedings against the State on account of the length of the preliminary criminal proceedings.
On 8 November 2006 the applicant and M. M. were denied access to the criminal file by the Ljubljana District Public Prosecutor’s Office.
After several unsuccessful attempts to be given access to the criminal file, the applicant and M.M. on 10 May 2007 lodged a complaint concerning the failure of the Ljubljana District Public Prosecutor’s Office to render a decision within the prescribed time-limit (molk organa) with the Information Commissioner (Informacijski pooblaščenec).
On 6 August 2007 the Information Commissioner ordered that the applicant should be given access to the documents in the file that contained the applicant’s personal data.
When the application was lodged, the applicant informed the Court that the Ljubljana District Public Prosecutor’s Office had failed to comply with the decision of the Information Commissioner, and upon further denied him access to the criminal file.
According to the information submitted by the Government in their observations dated 11 September 2013, on 8 August 2007 the applicant and M.M. were sent copies of the case file which contained personal data of the applicant. Further, following a successful supervisory appeal against the rejection of the criminal complaint against the applicant and M.M., the criminal proceedings continued. On 18 December 2009 the indictment against the applicant and M.M. for abuse of office became final.
In his response to the aforementioned observations of the Government, the applicant’s representative inter alia submitted that he had not been informed of the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant after 3 August 2007 and that the subject of the application was the one outlined in the original application lodged with the Court on 2 November 2007.
B. Relevant domestic law
For relevant domestic law, see Šubinski v. Slovenia, no. 19611/04, §§ 42‑ 46, 18 January 2007 and Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 38-48.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the preliminary criminal proceedings against him lasted unduly long and that he was not in a position to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damages sustained on account of the length of the preliminary criminal proceedings, since he had been denied access to the District Attorney’s Office case file and furthermore also the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in his case. As originally introduced, the application concerned the length of proceedings to August 2007, at which point the criminal complaint against the applicant had been rejected and the applicant’s complaint that the public prosecutor had not given a decision in time was still under consideration.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”.
The Court will first consider the length of the proceedings for the purposes of the present case.
As to the beginning of the period to be taken into consideration, the Court recalls that the notion of “charge” for the purpose of Article 6 § 1 is wider than its formal conception and that the preliminary investigation can thus fall within the period to be taken into consideration (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 44, Series A no. 35; Šubinski v. Slovenia, no. 19611/04, § 62, 18 January 2007). Based on its interpretation of “charge” as the “official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a description that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected” (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51), the Court concludes that the period to be taken into consideration in the instant case started on 26 September 2005, when the applicant was for the first time informed about the criminal complaint lodged against him and questioned by the police. It does not appear from the file that the applicant was in any way affected by the fact that a criminal complaint had in fact been lodged in November 2001 or, indeed, that he was even aware of it.
As to the end of the period to be taken into consideration the Court notes that the applicant’s representative in his observations in reply specifically limited the complaints to the state of the proceedings on the date of lodging the application in November 2007.
The period to be taken into consideration is thus no more than one year and one month (from 26 September 2005 to 19 October 2006), which cannot be considered excessive. The Court therefore finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies before the domestic courts, the Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the preliminary criminal investigation is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim that his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares inadmissible the application.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy