THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33578/02
by Robert ŠELIGA
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC. Bîrsan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 June 2001,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Robert Šeliga, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Velenje. He was represented before the Court by the Verstovšek lawyers who are practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 August 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. His employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
On 30 October 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 7,886,567 tolars (approximately 33,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 14 and 15 December 1995 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 29 March 1996 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 28 June and 8 November 1996 and on 14 February 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and increased his claim.
On 2 April 1997 the court held a hearing which was adjourned for additional evidence-taking.
On 23 June 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 2 June 1997 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a medical expert.
On 14 July 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions. That day, the court appointed a medical expert who delivered an opinion on 15 September 1997. The court sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert. He delivered the additional opinion on 16 October 1997.
On 31 July, 3 and 30 October and 5 November 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and increased his claim.
On 5 November 1997 the court held a hearing which was adjourned because the applicant submitted preliminary observations increasing his claim.
On 31 December 1997 and 27 January 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 11 February 1998 the court held a hearing, which was adjourned because it did not have enough time to serve the applicant’s submissions of 27 January 1998 on the respondent.
On 6 March 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 31 March 1998.
On 14 April 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 21 October 1998 the court allowed the ZT’s appeal and decreased the damages awarded. The court also upheld both appeals in the part concerning the costs and expenses of the proceedings and remitted the case to the first instance court for re-examination.
On 19 January 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 1 December 1999 the court allowed the appeal in part and increased the amount of damages awarded.
On 13 April 2002 the applicant lodged with the first-instance court preliminary written submission concerning costs and expenses. On 9 June and 30 August 2000 he requested the court to render a decision.
On 20 September 2000 the Celje District Court delivered a decision concerning the costs and expenses of the proceedings. ZT appealed.
On 1 March 2001 the Celje Higher Court allowed the appeal in part and lowered the amount of costs awarded.
On 9 May 2001 the applicant requested the court to correct its decision. On the same day he sought from the Public Prosecutor’s Office a request for protection of legality against the Celje Higer Court’s decision.
On 16 May 2001 the court corrected its decision and served it on the applicant on 29 May 2001.
On 31 August 2001 the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to lodge a request for protection of legality.
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 proceedings. In substance, he also complained in substance about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 30 October 1995, the day the applicant instituted proceedings in the Celje District Court, and ended on 29 May 2001, the day the Celje Higher Court’s decision concerning costs and expenses was served on the applicant (see, e.g., mutatis mutandis, Mamič v. Slovenia (no. 2), no. 75778/01, §§ 26-29, 27 July 2006, and Rodič v. Slovenia, no. 38528/02, § 18, 27 April 2006). They therefore lasted five years and seven months for three levels of jurisdiction. Due to a remittal, decisions were rendered on five instances.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, inter alia, S.I. v. Italie (dec.), no. 49363/99, 21 December 1999), the Court considers that complaint concerning the length of the second set of the proceedings is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complained that the remedies available for excessive legal proceedings in Slovenia were ineffective.
The Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim that his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated. Therefore, this claim does not reveal any appearance of violation of this provision.
Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerCorneliu Bîrsan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy