THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28933/02
by Marko PEJAKOVIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Hedigan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 September 2000,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marko Pejakovič, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1958 and lives in Celje. He is represented before the Court by the Verstovšek lawyers.
The respondent Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 January 1992 the applicant was injured at work. His employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
On 28 December 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,196,100 Slovenian tolars for the injuries sustained.
Between 26 May and 29 June 1993 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.
Hearings were held on 17 June and 26 October 1993.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 December 1993.
On 30 December 1993 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 31 March 1994 the Celje Higher Court upheld both appeals and remitted the case to first-instance court for re-examination.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.
Between 4 July 1994 and 6 October 1998 the applicant lodged ten preliminary written submissions.
Between 10 October 1995 and 3 November 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
In 1995 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodnišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
Of the five hearings held between 8 September 1994 and 29 January 1999, three were adjourned due to the appointment of experts.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts and an expert, whose duty was to examine working conditions at the material time. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 31 March 1999.
On 6 April 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 7 April 2000 the first-instance court issued a decision correcting its judgment.
On 10 January 2001 the Celje Higher Court upheld ZT’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
On 7 March 2001 the applicant filed the proposal for correcting the second-instance court’s decision.
On 29 March 2001 the Higher Court rejected his proposal.
Between 24 April 2001 and 9 May 2002 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
During a re-trial, the court appointed a woodcraft expert.
Of the three hearings held between 23 May 2001 and 27 May 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.
On 3 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 12 December 2002 the Celje Higher Court partly upheld both appeals and changed the first-instance court’s judgment.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 9 January 2003.
On 10 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.
On 9 December 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and changed the second-instance court’s judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 28 January 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated by an excessive length of the proceedings. In substance, he also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13).
THE LAW
On 15 September 2006 the Government made a proposal for a friendly settlement. On 3 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government made in accordance with their proposal:
“I, Lucijan Bembič, Agent of the Republic of Slovenia, declare that the Government of Slovenia offer to pay ex gratia 4,165 euros to Mr Marko Pejakovič with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...”
On 20 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Marko Pejakovič, note that the Government of Slovenia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 4,165 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovenia in respect of the facts giving raise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case...”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerJohn Hedigan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy