FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10882/10
Zorica STANOJEVIĆ-STANIĆ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Zorica Stanojević-Stanić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Belgrade.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Morela.
On 31 January 2014 the complaints concerning the length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
The Government of Serbia, having been informed of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court), did not avail themselves of this right.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows.
On 1 October 1997 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident which occurred in Vrančić, Serbia and was caused by a Slovenian lorry driver, M.Z. She was brought to a hospital in Belgrade where her right upper arm was amputated. She also sustained injuries to the head and face.
On 9 February 2001 the applicant instituted damages proceedings before the Celje District Court against the D. insurance company registered in Serbia (“the first defendant”), the Z.M. insurance company, registered in Slovenia (“the second defendant”), the driver M.Z. (the third defendant”) and his employer A.M. (“the fourth defendant”), both Slovenian nationals.
On 6 August 2001 the court forwarded the claim to the defendants.
On 5 November 2001 the court requested the applicant to provide a translation of the claim into Serbian language for the purpose of its service on the first defendant.
On 2 September and 20 October 2002 the court reminded the applicant that she had still not submitted the translation of the claim and the relevant documents.
On 30 October 2002 the applicant submitted the translation of the claim.
On 24 January 2003 the applicant submitted the translation of her medical file.
On 22 March 2003 the court requested the Ministry of Justice to forward the translated claim and the relevant documents to the first defendant via diplomatic channel.
On 2 June 2003 the court received the confirmation of the receipt of its writings by the first defendant.
On 13 August 2003 the first defendant submitted its observations on the claim.
On 11 May 2004 the court ordered the first defendant to submit within 30 days its observations on the claim in the Slovenian language.
On 1 June 2004 the applicant’s representative informed the court that her authority to represent the applicant had been cancelled.
On 21 June 2004 the first defendant submitted its observations in Slovenian language.
On 8 October 2004 the court ordered the applicant to appoint a person from Slovenia to receive the court’s writings addressed to her.
On 1 December 2004 the court received the authority form by the applicant’s new representative.
On 20 March 2006 the court scheduled the first main hearing for 11 April 2006. Upon a request by the applicant the hearing was adjourned.
On 12 May 2006 the court held the first main hearing at which the applicant withdrew the claim in respect of the second defendant. The court hence discontinued the proceedings in respect of the second defendant.
On 25 October 2006 the court appointed an expert neuropsychologist.
Following the applicant’s enquiries, the court, between May 2007 and August 2007, twice reminded the expert to submit the requested opinion which he finally did on 14 September 2007.
On 11 January 2008 the court scheduled a main hearing for 18 February 2008.
On 11 February 2008 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing and informed the court that she had appointed a new representative.
On 3 April 2008 the court held the second main hearing at which the applicant for the first time stated that she did not understand the Slovenian language and requested the assistance of a court interpreter. The court therefore adjourned the hearing.
On 21 August 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal.
On 5 September 2008 the court scheduled a hearing for 17 November 2008. It further appointed an interpreter and ordered the applicant to pay an advance for the interpreter.
On 9 September 2008 the applicant requested the court to prolong the deadline for the payment of the advance for the interpreter.
On 9 September 2008 the President of the Celje District Court responded to the applicant’s supervisory appeal, informing her in accordance with Section 6 paragraph 4 of the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act) that a hearing was scheduled for 17 November 2008. The court further instructed the applicant that in case the hearing would not take place she could lodge a motion for a deadline with the Celje Higher Court.
On 23 September 2008 the applicant’s representative informed the court that the applicant was on holidays abroad and that she could therefore only pay the advance for an interpreter in October.
On 7 November 2008 the applicant’s representative wrote to the court informing it that the applicant had changed her surname and that since the summons to the hearing indicate her previous surname her visa application had been dismissed. He therefore requested the court to send a new summons, indicating that in case that the new summons had not reached the applicant in due time she would need to request for an adjournment of the hearing.
On 11 November 2008 the applicant’s representative requested the court to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 17 November indicating that the applicant and the first defendant might settle the case. On the same day the court adjourned the hearing.
On 10 December 2008 the court inquired with the applicant whether the parties had settled.
On 1 September 2009 the court sent a letter to the applicant’s representative, requesting him to inform it whether the case had been settled.
On 11 September 2009 the applicant’s representative informed the court that he could not reach his client.
On 30 September 2009 the applicant’s representative informed the court that he had cancelled the authority to represent the applicant since he had not been able to reach her for several months.
On 27 October 2009 the court issued an order to appoint a temporary representative for the applicant on whom it would serve the court’s writings.
On 16 November 2009 the court sent a letter to the applicant’s temporary representative ordering her to transmit the court’s writing to the applicant.
On 14 December 2009 the applicant’s temporary representative informed the court that the applicant had not accepted the court’s documents.
On 15 February 2010 the court requested the Ministry of Justice to serve the writings on the applicant via diplomatic channel.
On 7 June 2010 the applicant’s new representative submitted power of attorney to the court.
On 13 August 2010 the court appointed an interpreter and ordered the applicant to pay the advance for the interpreter’s fees.
On 3 September 2010 the applicant’s representative requested the court to prolong the deadline for the payment of advance since he had not been able to reach the applicant.
On 11 October 2010 the applicant’s representative sent to the court a proof of payment of the advance for the interpreter.
On 21 October 2010 the court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to submit translations of the receipts of treatments she had been receiving and to pay the advance for the hearing of the appointed expert.
On 17 November 2010 the applicant requested the court to extend the deadline for the submission of the translations and the payment of the advance.
On 2 December 2010 the applicant submitted written observations and an amendment to the claim, by which she had reintroduced the claim against the second defendant in respect of which she had withdrawn it on 12 May 2006.
On 21 December 2010 the court held a hearing. Due to the absence of the expert the hearing was adjourned.
On 24 December 2010 the second defendant submitted its observations, stating that it did not agree with the amendment of the claim and did not wish to enter into the proceedings.
On 2 March 2011 the court decided not to grant the extension of the claim to the second defendant. The applicant appealed.
On 1 April 2011 the applicant’s representative cancelled the authority.
On 7 July 2011 the Celje Higher Court annulled the decision of 2 March 2011.
In December 2011 the court received four letters written by the applicant on 16 August 2011 and 8 December 2011 respectively to which she referred as “appeals”.
On 9 January 2012 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the second defendant.
On 10 January 2012 the court held a hearing but had to adjourn it because the applicant failed to appear. It was unclear whether she had received the summons.
On 18 January 2012 the court scheduled a hearing for 16 February and requested the Ministry of Justice to serve the summons via diplomatic channel.
On 13 February 2012 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing owing to poor weather conditions which would not allow her to travel to Slovenia. The next day the court informed the parties that the hearing was postponed to 10 April 2012.
On 5 April 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 9 January 2012 and requested the court to postpone the hearing scheduled for 10 April 2012 pending the outcome of the appeal. The court decided not to uphold the applicant’s request and held a hearing on 10 April.
On 11 July 2012 the court appointed an expert in psychiatry. The latter informed the court, on 26 July 2012, that he could not provide the opinion due to an excessive amount of work. On 21 August 2012 the court accordingly revoked the expert and appointed a new one.
On 24 July 2012 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal of 5 April 2012 on procedural grounds.
On 31 August 2012 the court ordered the applicant to amend her appeals dated 16 August 2011 and 8 December 2012. Since she had failed to do so, the court, on 20 September 2012, rejected the appeals on procedural grounds.
On 14 September 2012 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal.
On 1 October 2012 the President of the Celje District Court responded to the applicant’s supervisory appeal, informing her in accordance with Section 6 paragraph 4 of the 2006 Act that a hearing was scheduled for 20 November 2012.
On 8 October 2012 the court ordered the applicant to pay advance for the expert psychiatrist’s fees.
On 8 November 2012 the court reminded the applicant that she had not yet settled the advance for the expert psychiatrist.
On 20 November 2012 the court held a hearing.
On 4 December 2012 the applicant sought the withdrawal of the presiding judge.
On 21 December 2012 the court again reminded the applicant that she had not yet settled the advance for the expert psychiatrist.
On 7 January 2013 the Court instructed the applicant to amend her motion of 4 December 2012.
On 15 January 2013 the applicant sent a further letter to the Court requesting the exclusion of the presiding judge.
On 12 February 2012 the applicant’s representative cancelled the authority.
On 15 February 2013 the court rejected the applicant’s motions of 4 December 2012 and 15 January 2013 on procedural grounds.
On 26 March 2013 the court held a hearing.
On 5 April 2013 the applicant was granted free legal aid.
On 28 May 2013 the court requested the applicant’s new representative to present the power of attorney.
On 7 June 2013 the applicant’s representative requested the court to prolong the time-limit for submitting the power of attorney since the letter she had sent to the applicant had not reached her. On 14 June 2013 the court granted the request.
On 16 July 2013 the court appointed a financial expert.
On 26 August 2013 the applicant’s representative submitted to the court the power of attorney.
On 9 September 2013 the court received the opinion of the financial expert.
On 27 January 2014 the applicant sent to the Celje Higher Court a letter with the subject “request for the revision of the proceedings”. The higher court forwarded the letter to the first-instance court.
On 11 February 2014 the court instructed the applicant to amend her letter of 27 January 2014.
On 20 February 2014 the court held a hearing. It was decided that the next hearing was to take place on 27 February 2014.
On 26 February 2014 the applicant’s representative requested the court to postpone the hearing since the applicant had not replied to the letter with the summons to the hearing which she had sent to her per e-mail and per regular mail. On the same day the court postponed the hearing.
On 4 April 2014 the court rejected the applicant’s motion of 27 January 2014 on procedural grounds.
On 7 October 2014 the court held the final main hearing and issued its decision, upholding the applicant’s claim in part and dismissing the remainder of the claim.
On 26 January 2015 and 12 February 2015 the applicant lodged appeals against first instance court’s decision in Serbian language.
On 17 February 2015 the Celje Higher Court ordered the applicant to amend her appeals by submitting a translation of the appeal into the Slovenian language.
On 12 March 2015 the applicant sent to the court a translation of the appeal of 12 February 2015.
On 19 March 2015 the Court rejected the appeal of 12 February 2015 as being lodged too late and ordered the applicant to submit within 15 days a translation of her appeal of 26 January 2015.
The proceedings are currently pending before the Celje Higher Court.
B. Relevant domestic law
For relevant domestic law see Žunič v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 24342/04, §§ 16-26, 18 October 2007).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about undue length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleged that the proceedings lasted unduly long and that she had exhausted all the remedies available to her. She alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant parts reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to properly exhaust the available domestic remedies since she had failed to lodge a motion for a deadline. In any case, they considered the application to be manifestly ill-founded due to the applicant’s contribution to the duration of the proceedings.
The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objections concerning the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the application should in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
The proceedings in issue began on 9 February 2001 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted fourteen years and six months at two instances.
The Court recalls that the “reasonableness” of the length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behavior of the applicant and that of the competent authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions of the parties, the Court considers that such a duration of the proceedings as in the present case is in itself susceptible of raising an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
It further observes in respect of the conduct of the domestic courts that between August 2003 and May 2004, and between December 2004 and March 2006, no procedural steps were made by the domestic courts, which altogether accounts for a period of two years and one month.
However, in the present case the Court cannot overlook the applicant’s decisive contribution to the length of the proceedings.
It notes in this respect foremost that on several occasions hearings had been postponed and proceedings as such adjourned at the applicant’s request. Moreover, after having introduced the claim in the Serbian language, the applicant failed to submit to the court a Slovenian translation of the claim for a year after she had been ordered to do so and it took her further three months to provide the court with a translation of her medical documentation. She was also in delays with paying the advances for the appointed experts and interpreters. Furthermore, since the applicant kept changing her representatives, the court had difficulties to reach her, as did her representatives, and to serve her with the court’s documents and writings. The Court also notes that the applicant on one occasion even refused to accept the court’s writings which had been sent to her via a temporary representative appointed by the court in order to be able to reach the applicant. Only seven years after the institution of the proceedings the applicant for the first time requested the assistance of a court’s interpreter which led to a further adjournment of the proceedings. Finally, she also lodged with the court several motions and appeals which were rejected on procedural grounds and modified her claim at a late stage in proceedings which also contributed to the overall duration of the proceedings.
The Court therefore accepts the Government’s arguments and finds that the delays imputable to the applicant, considered in the light of the overall duration of the proceedings, warrant the conclusion that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was not excessive contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The second complaint concerned the lack of effective remedies. The applicant relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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, ECHR 2006‑VII).
Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim for the purpose of Article 13.
Accordingly, also this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2015.
Milan BlaškoHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy