THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29811/06
by Franc POLANC
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2006,
Having regard to the friendly settlement reached,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Franc Polanc, a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Laško. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of proceedings
On 10 July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 3 November 2004 the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding his request in part. The applicant appealed.
On 8 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 9 November 2006 a first-instance judgment was delivered.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 3 January 2007.
2. Second set of proceedings
On 15 September 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages sustained in a car accident.
On 12 February 2003 the first-instance court held its first hearing.
On 18 January 2008 the proceedings were still pending at first instance.
Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Nezirović v. Slovenia decision (no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings had been excessively long and under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
1. First set of proceedings
The Court notes that, after the Government had been informed of the application on 19 February 2009 (Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court), the applicant received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposal of 13 May 2009 under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. Further to the receipt of the applicant’s reply, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted the settlement proposal.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention 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
...
(b) the matter has been resolved;
...
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.”
The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
2. Second set of proceedings
As to the second set of proceedings, the Court notes that the proceedings were pending before the first-instance court when the 2006 Act became operational, and have subsequently continued for more than four months. It was therefore open or is still open to the applicant to effectively avail himself of the remedies provided under the 2006 Act. Thus, the complaint made under Article 6 should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complaint made under Article 13 as manifestly ill-founded (Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007) pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application in so far as it concerns the first set of proceedings out of its list of cases,
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy