FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8835/09
Franc MOHORKO
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 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 5 February 2009,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Franc Mohorko, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Ig pri Ljubljani. He is represented before the Court by Ms Z. Rekar, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.
The Slovenian Government were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.
On 26 May 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court claiming damages for injuries caused by defendants V. F. and S. S. in September 1994.
A hearing was held on 7 April 2004. On the same date the Ljubljana District Court partially upheld and partially dismissed the applicant’s claim. All parties appealed.
On 8 June 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court partially upheld the appeal of V. F. and remitted the case in part back to the first instance court. It further dismissed the appeal of the applicant and partially modified the decision concerning S. S.
On 23 September 2005 the Ljubljana District Court held a hearing concerning the part that had been remitted back from the Higher Court and issued its decision.
On 28 September 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Higher Court of 8 June 2005.
On 17 November 2005 the applicant and V.F. lodged an appeal against the decision of the District Court of 23 September 2005 in respect of the decision on the costs.
On 14 May 2007 the applicant lodged a claim for just satisfaction due to the length of proceedings on the basis of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) with the State Attorney’s Office.
On 5 October 2007 the State Attorney’s Office rejected the applicant’s claim instructing the applicant that the proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Court and referring him to the acceleratory remedies provided for under the 2006 Act.
On 15 November 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the points of law against the decision of the Higher Court of 8 June 2005. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 11 February 2008 the applicant forwarded the decision of the Supreme Court to the State Attorney’s Office and submitted a new claim for just satisfaction due to the length of proceedings on the basis of the 2006 Act.
On 20 February 2008 the State Attorney’s Office rejected the applicant’s claim as they had been informed that the proceedings were in part still pending before the Ljubljana Higher Court. They instructed the applicant that he was obliged to exhaust the acceleratory remedies provided for under the 2006 Act in order to be able to claim just satisfaction claim after the termination of the proceedings.
On 22 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal.
On 17 October 2012 the Ljubljana Higher Court partially upheld the appeals of the applicant and V.F. and modified the decision on the costs. The decision was served on the applicant on 16 November 2012.
The applicant did not lodge any acceleratory remedies against excessive length of the proceedings under the 2006 Act.
B. Relevant domestic law
For the relevant domestic law, see Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, §§ 38-48, 3 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of proceedings and lack of effective remedy in this respect. He further invokes Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the unfairness of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. Complaints under Articles 6 (length of proceedings) and 13 of the Convention
The Court notes that the Government maintained that the domestic proceedings were finally terminated on 16 November 2012, when the second-instance decision concerning the costs of proceedings was served on the applicant and not with the issuing of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 22 September 2008 and that therefore the applicant had had at his disposal remedies provided for under the 2006 Act which the Court had already found to be effective.
The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires that all stages of legal proceedings for the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him or her, not excluding stages subsequent to judgment on the merits, be resolved within a reasonable time. It observes that the legal costs which formed the subject matter of the proceedings before the Higher Court until 16 November 2012 were incurred during the resolution of a dispute which undoubtedly involved “the determination of ... civil rights and obligations” (see Robins v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1997, §§ 28-9, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑V).
Therefore, it concludes that in the present case the proceedings terminated on 16 November 2012 when the decision of the Ljubljana Higher Court concerning the appeals of the parties in respect of the decision on the costs was served on the applicant, which is more than three months after the 2006 Act became operational. The applicant therefore had at his disposal domestic remedies, which he failed to exhaust.
Having regards to the Court’s well-established case-law (see Grzinčič v. Slovenia, cited above, § 110 and Nezirovič v. Slovenia, no. 16400/06, (dec.), §§ 27-42, 18 November 2008) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings should be rejected under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention for being manifestly ill-founded.
2. Other complaints
The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair.
Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy