Published on 19 January 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 17268/23
Miloš MIHAJLOVIĆ
against Slovenia
lodged on 21 April 2023
communicated on 1 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a question of adequacy of compensation paid to the applicant who had been erased from the permanent residents register on 26 February 1992 (see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 341-362, 393-396, ECHR 2012 (extracts) where a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention was found because of the applicants’ erasure from the permanent residents register – hereinafter “the erasure”). The applicant obtained a residence permit in Slovenia on 11 June 2002.
Following the judgment in Kurić and Others (cited above), the applicant sought compensation before the Ljubljana District Court. He claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 120,000 for pecuniary damage which he had allegedly incurred because of the erasure. The pecuniary damage related to the loss of his job in a textile company (in which he had worked from 1978 until the erasure) and his inability to earn additional money as a taxi driver because of the erasure. His claim with respect to pecuniary damage was rejected. He was awarded EUR 11,070 with respect to non‑pecuniary damage. He was also ordered to pay EUR 4,860 for the costs of the proceedings to the defendant, that is the State. He was unsuccessful with his remedies. In this connection he was ordered to pay to the State EUR 1,071 for the costs of the appeal proceedings. The domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant had been a victim of the “erasure” from 26 February 1992 to 11 June 2002. They further found that he had lost his opportunity to work lawfully without a special permit once he had been “erased”. However, they considered that he had failed to prove the causal link between the erasure and the alleged loss of income. In particular, the domestic courts considered that the applicant should have proved that he had been unable to work despite having actively sought employment solutions.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention, and in substance under Article 13 taken together with Article 8 of the Convention, that the domestic courts arbitrarily denied the existence of a causal link between the erasure and the pecuniary damage alleged. He further complains that the first-instance court unjustifiably refused his request to appoint a financial expert to assess his loss of income.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In view of the reasons for the dismissal of his claim concerning pecuniary damage, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec), no. 65020/13, 18 October 2016, and Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 108-109, ECHR 2014)?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the refusal to appoint a financial expert witness, was the principle of equality of arms respected?