THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16007/06
by Ika Antonija MAJ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Ika Antonija Maj, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Škofja Loka. 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. On 9 May 1995 M.B. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju), seeking a larger share of their joint property.
4. On an undetermined date, N.P. and Z.P. joined the proceedings as third parties on the defendant’s side.
5. On 3 March 2004 the Kranj District Court delivered a judgment, upholding M.B.’s claim in part and rejecting the remainder. M.B., N.P. and Z.P. appealed.
6. On 6 October 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) gave a judgment upholding the appeals and remitting the case for re-examination.
7. On 29 June 2005 the Kranj District Court rejected M.B.’s claim. The applicant, M.B. and N.P. appealed.
8. On 18 January 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
9. Subsequently, M.B. lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) on 31 August 2006.
10. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 3 October 2006.
B. Relevant domestic law
11. 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.
12. 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
13. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. She also complained that she did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention). In her letters of 24 June 2009 and 9 September 2009 received by the Court’s Registry on 29 June 2009 and on 11 September 2009 respectively, the applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings.
THE LAW
A. Complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
14. The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court, the applicant received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposal 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. It further notes that the applicant has 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).
15. 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.
16. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the application as far as it concerns the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; therefore, this part of the application 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.
B. Complaint about the unfairness of the proceedings
17. As to the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings, the Court notes that the final decision in the present case was served on the applicant on 3 October 2006, while the applicant introduced her additional complaint only in her letters of 24 June 2009 and 9 September 2009, which is more that six months after the date of the final decision.
18. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases with regard to the complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy