Communicated on 16 June 2014
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos 1446/07 and 5667/07
Anamarija STIBILJ against Slovenia
and Ivanka STIBILJ against Slovenia
lodged on 29 December 2006 and 29 December 2006 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The first applicant, Mrs Anamarija Stibilj, was born in 1949 and lives in Ajdovščina. The second applicant, Mrs Ivanka Stibilj, was born in 1921 and also lives in Ajdovščina. Both applicants are Slovenian nationals and are represented before the Court by Mrs. M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 February 1989 the Ajdovščina Municipality Land Consolidation Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) adopted a consolidation scheme concerning, inter alia, the first applicant’s predecessor’s and the second applicant’s land.
On 4 March 1989 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant appealed against the decision before the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority (hereinafter “the Authority”), arguing that they had not been duly compensated for the plots they had transferred into the land consolidation programme.
On 6 November 1990 the Commission amended the land consolidation scheme by assigning the second applicant a different plot of land. The second applicant appealed against the new scheme.
On 21 December 1990 the first applicant’s predecessor lodged an appeal for failure of the Authority to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit.
On 1 February 1991 the Authority granted the first applicant’s predecessor’s appeal, remitting the case to the Commission for further consideration. The Authority found that the operative part of the decision lacked clarity and that the Commission misapplied the law.
On 8 March 1994 the second applicant lodged an appeal for failure of the Authority to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention became operational in respect of Slovenia.
On 16 November 1994 the Authority granted the second applicant’s appeal, finding that the operative part of the decision was inconsistent with its reasoning. The case was remitted to the Commission for further consideration.
The Commission having failed to undertake a fresh examination of their cases, on 10 April 1997 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant lodged an appeal for failure to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (hereinafter “the Ministry”). Moreover, on 30 June 1997 they both appealed to the Ministry to expedite the resolution of their land consolidation decisions.
The Ministry not having responded to their appeal, on 25 September 1997 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant brought an action for failure of the Ministry to adopt a decision before the Administrative Court.
On 24 September 1999 the Administrative Court granted their actions and ordered the Ministry to decide on the matter at issue within 30 days from the date on which its judgment became final.
Meanwhile, on 16 August 1999, the Ajdovščina Administrative Unit (hereinafter “the Administrative Unit”), which in the meantime had acquired competence to decide the matters of land consolidation, adopted a new decision on the first applicant’s predecessor’s and the second applicant’s redistribution of plots of land.
On 23 September 1999 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant appealed against this decision before the Ministry.
On 25 August 2000 their appeals were granted by the Ministry, which again assigned them different plots of land to compensate for the value of their original plots.
On 10 November 2000 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant brought an administrative action against the Ministry’s decision of 25 August 2000 before the Administrative Court, complaining that the Ministry had failed duly to consider the criteria applicable to the land consolidation procedure and thereby violated their right to equality before the law.
On 23 January 2001 the first applicant’s predecessor died and the first applicant inherited a share in his land, including in the plots subject to land consolidation proceedings.
On 11 April 2003 and 9 May 2003, respectively, the Administrative Court granted the first and second applicants’ action for the annulment of the Ministry’s decision of 25 August 2000 on the ground that they had not been acquainted with an expert opinion on which the Ministry had based its decision and that no reasons had been provided for dismissing the applicants’ objections to the applicable distribution of land. The Administrative Court remitted the case to the Ministry for fresh consideration.
On 15 May 2007 the Ministry adopted new decisions concerning the distribution of land in respect of the first and second applicant.
On 17 June 2007 the applicants brought an administrative action against these decisions before the Administrative Court.
On 11 February 2008 and 3 March 2009 the applicants lodged two appeals before the Administrative Court to expedite the resolution of their action.
On 19 June 2009 and 23 October 2009, respectively, the Administrative Court granted the first and second applicants’ action for the annulment of the Ministry’s decisions of 15 May 2007, and again remitted the case to the Ministry for fresh consideration.
On 23 November 2009 and 10 May 2010 the first and second applicants lodged appeals before the Ministry, requesting that the proceedings be expedited. Moreover, three other similar appeals were lodged before the Ministry by the first applicant on 27 August 2012, 4 December 2012 and 27 January 2013.
The land consolidation proceedings are still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. The Administrative Disputes Act
Section 26 of the 1997 Administrative Disputes Act, in force from 2 September 1997 to 31 December 2006, entitled a party having lodged an application with an administrative authority to institute an action for failure to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit before the Administrative Court (administrative action) in the following cases:
“ (...)
2. If the appellate authority does not rule on the appeal against the first-instance decision within two months, or within a shorter period, if such is provided by law, and if, following a repeated request, it does not issue such a decision within seven days, the applicant may then bring an administrative action as if his request had been dismissed.
3. The applicant may also bring an action from the preceding paragraph when the first-instance administrative authority fails to make a decision against which no appeal lies.
4. If in matters where a right to an appeal exists the first-instance authority fails to give a decision upon an individual’s application within two months, or within a shorter period, if such is provided by law, the individual may then submit his application to the appellate administrative authority. The individual may bring an administrative action against the decision of the appellate authority. The individual may also bring an administrative action under the conditions set out in paragraph 2.”
A similar provision may be found in Section 28 of the new Administrative Dispute Act, in force from 1 January 2007:
“ (...)
2. If the appellate authority does not rule on the appeal against the first-instance decision within two months, or within a shorter period, if such is provided by law, and if, following a repeated request, it does not issue such a decision within seven days, the applicant may then bring an administrative action as if his request had been dismissed.
3. The applicant may also bring an action from the preceding paragraph when the first-instance administrative authority fails to make a decision against which no appeal lies, and in the case that the authority has not issued a final administrative act within three years from the beginning of the procedure, irrespective of the fact whether or not ordinary and extraordinary remedies were already applied in the procedure, except if the procedure was suspended.
4. If in matters where a right to an appeal exists the first-instance authority fails to give a decision upon an individual’s application within two months, or within a shorter period, if such is provided by law, the individual may then submit his application to the appellate administrative authority, which is required to decide on the matter. The individual may bring an administrative action against the decision of the appellate authority. The individual may also bring an administrative action under the conditions set out in paragraph 2.”
2. The Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay Act
The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (hereinafter “the 2006 Act”) which became operational on 1 January 2007 applies to civil proceedings, civil non-contentious proceedings and criminal proceedings. The Act provides for two remedies to expedite pending proceedings – a supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline – and, under certain conditions, for a claim for just satisfaction in respect of damage sustained because of the excessive length of proceedings. The relevant provisions of the Act are set out in Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, §§ 38-48, 3 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of administrative proceedings and administrative judicial review proceedings has been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They further complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they have not been afforded any effective remedies in this regard.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do or did the applicants have an effective remedy at their disposal for their complaints concerning the length of the administrative proceedings under Article 6 § 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If the answer is Yes, how should these remedies be/have been exhausted? In particular, in so far as an action for failure to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit is or was the only remedy in the administrative proceedings available to the applicants with regard to their complaints of excessive length, does or did it itself comply with the “reasonable time” requirement? In addition, are or were there any special rules applicable concerning legal costs (in particular court fees) in order to avoid an unreasonable restriction on the applicants’ right to lodge such actions?
2. Depending on the reply to question 1, have the applicants exhausted available and effective domestic remedies for their complaints concerning the length of administrative proceedings and proceedings of judicial review (administrative action before the Administrative Court) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Is the length of the administrative proceedings and judicial review proceedings in compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit in support of their arguments concerning the remedies available with regard to the complaints of excessive length of administrative proceedings copies of relevant domestic decisions or extracts from the relevant legislation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy