FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43965/08
Jakob POTOČNIK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 December 2012 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 16 December 2008,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jakob Potočnik, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Kamnica. He was represented before the Court by L. and J. Horvat, lawyers practising in Murska Sobota.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Murska Sobota District Court against the insurance company ADRIATIC seeking compensation for damages sustained in a car accident.
On 10 November 1998 the first-instance court held its first hearing and issued a judgment given in default of appearance of the defendant. Following an appeal by the defendant, the Maribor Higher Court remitted the case for re-examination on 7 December 1999.
On 18 December 2001 and 8 May 2003 the first-instance court held two hearings and appointed an expert.
Between 6 June 2004 and 30 June 2006 three hearings were held.
On 7 December 2005 the first-instance court rendered a judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
On 20 February 2007 the Maribor Higher Court delivered a judgment rejecting the appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 9 March 2007. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 20 March 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law on procedural grounds as not allowed since the amount in question did not meet the statutory threshold.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
THE LAW
Further to the communication of the case under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the Government argued that the applicant lodged the application with the Court after the expiry of the six months time-limit prescribed in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In the alternative, the Government argued that the application was in any event manifestly ill-founded. The applicant contested the Government’s arguments in a general way without addressing the issue of the date of lodging of the application.
In accordance with the established practice of the Convention organs and Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court, the Court normally considers the date of the introduction of an application to be the date of the first communication indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the application (see Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court as quoted in Kemevuako v. the Netherlands, (dec.), no. 65938/09, 1 June 2010). Such first communication will interrupt the running of the six-month period.
The purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of the law, to ensure that cases raising Convention issues are dealt with within a reasonable time and to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. As the Court has held, it would be contrary to the spirit and aim of the six-month rule if, by any initial communication, an application could set into motion the proceedings under the Convention and then remain inactive for an unexplained and unlimited length of time. Applicants must therefore pursue their applications with reasonable expedition, after any initial introductory contact (see P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004). A failure to do so may lead the Court to decide that the interruption of the six-month period is to be invalidated and that it is the date of the submission of the completed application which is to be considered as the date of its introduction (see Kemevuako v. the Netherlands, quoted above).
In the case at hand, the Court notes that the applicant’s representatives sent a letter to the Court on 28 December 2006 for a large number of applicants. The letter consisted of a front page of the application form (as used before the Court), a list of applicants with their personal details and a short general description stating that these are cases that raise length-of-proceedings issues and that the same list was submitted to the State Attorney’s Office in the attempt of reaching a settlement. On the same day the Registry sent a letter requesting the representatives to submit the necessary information within six months.
The duly completed application form and relevant documents for the present case were submitted on 16 December 2008. On 16 January 2009 the Registry informed the representatives that the case Potočnik v. Slovenia was registered under the application number 43965/08.
Given the fact that it took the representatives almost two years to complete the application in accordance with the requirements of Rule 47 of the Rules of the Court, the Court cannot accept that the circumstances in the present case were such as to suspend the running of the six month period referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
Therefore, notwithstanding the applicant’s initial letter of 28 December 2006, the Court considers 16 December 2008 to be the date of introduction of the application.
Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant availed himself of an appeal on points of law, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds as the claim was below the statutory threshold.
Accordingly, the final domestic decision to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the six-month period within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is the Maribor Higher Court decision of 20 Febuary 2007, which was served on the applicant on 9 March 2007 (see mutatis mutandis Ribič v. Slovenia, no. 20965/03, § 27, 19 October 2010; Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
Given that the Court considers 16 December 2008 to be the date of introduction of the application, the present application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for being lodged out of time.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy