THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 76357/01
by Radovan VIČIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Hedigan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 December 2000,
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 Radovan Vičič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Dutovlje. 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 31 January 1993 the applicant’s father, who owned a farm, died and the Koper Basic Court, Sežana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Kopru, enota v Sežani), consequently instituted inheritance proceedings.
On 1 September 1993 the first-instance court’s decision was quashed on appeal and remitted for reconsideration.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
In the course of the proceedings, the applicant lodged several written submissions and at least four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
During the proceedings he appointed unidentified number of attorneys, six of whom withdrew their authority for representation.
Of the six hearings held between 14 February 1995 and 25 February 2004, one was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
On 16 November 1994 the president of the Koper Basic Court rejected the applicant’s request of 26 April 1994 for withdrawal of judges from Sežana and Koper.
Since the applicant contested the validity of his father’s will, the court, on 14 July 1995, issued a decision to discontinue the proceedings and advised the applicant to initiate litigation proceedings. On the same date the court also issued a partly decision concerning inheritance of the applicant’s father’s shares. On 28 August 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal on his and his mother’s account. On 31 January 1996 the Koper Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Kopru) rejected the appeal. Since the applicant had not initiated civil proceedings in the time-limit (two months), the (renamed) Sežana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Sežani) continued the inheritance proceeding with the hearing held on 5 June 1996.
The applicant’s mother on at least two occasions informed the court that she had never authorised the applicant to represent her, and that he had forged her signature on some documents sent to the court.
On 5 September 1997 the court appointed three experts in order to asses the farm in question. However the expertise was not carried out since the heirs had not paid the costs.
On 15 April 1999 the court asked the Sežana Administration Unit (Upravna enota Sežana) to decide on the status of the farm since this was relevant for the inheritance proceedings. On 19 May 1999 the Unit found that the farm was not under the special protection. The applicant appealed on 31 May 1999.
On 16 June 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (“the MAFF”) rejected his appeal.
On 16 August 1999 the applicant lodged a claim against the MAFF’s decision with the Administrative Court (Upravno sodišče). On 27 August 1999 he supplemented the claim.
The judgment of 10 November 2000, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on him on 5 December 2000.
On 18 December 2000 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). On 10 October 2002 the court dismissed his appeal.
The applicant’s constitutional appeal of 27 December 2002 was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) on 16 December 2003. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 December 2003.
It appears that in the meanwhile, the court discontinued the inheritance proceedings; however there is, in this respect, no document in the case file.
In their observations of 2 September 2004, the respondent Government submitted that the next hearing in the inheritance proceedings was scheduled for 9 September 2004.
In his letter of 5 November 2005 the applicant stated that the inheritance proceedings are pending before the Koper Higher Court.
He also submitted that “new” administrative proceedings concerning the status of the farm were pending before the “Higher Administrative Court”.
The applicant sent to the Court a copy of a claim which was allegedly lodged with the Administrative Court on 8 March 2005. The claim challenged the MAFF’s decision of 13 January 2005 upholding a decision of the Sežana Administrative Unit. The latter rejected the applicant’s request concerning the status of the farm on 29 October 2004. Copies of the relevant decisions were not submitted to the Court.
In addition, the applicant mentioned that the proceedings by which he challenged his father’s will were pending before the Sežana Local Court. In this respect, he submitted to the Court, on 25 January 2006, minutes of the hearing before the Sežana Local Court held on 13 January 2006 and apparently concerning a claim lodged by the applicant in 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been deprived of the right to a fair trial and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. In substance, he also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13).
THE LAW
On 19 October 2005 the Court requested the applicant to inform it about any new developments concerning his case because it was not possible to establish the facts of the case as they concern the period after the submission of the Government’s observations, in particular as to what steps have been taken in the inheritance proceedings since the hearing held on 25 February 2004. He was also requested to send the relevant documents.
In his reply of 5 November 2005, the applicant mentioned certain important new facts, i.e. that the inheritance proceedings were pending before the Koper Higher Court, but clearly failed to submit any documents in support of those facts.
On 18 January 2006 the Court again requested the applicant to send documents, in particular those supporting his allegation that the inheritance proceedings were pending before the Koper Higher Court, or explain reasons for being unable to do so. He was also advised that the failure to comply with the Court’s request might result in the strike-out of his application.
The applicant replied on 25 January 2006. He submitted two documents – a copy of a claim and minutes – concerning two sets of separate proceedings, but did not submit other relevant documents, in particular copies of the decisions of the authorities, which would be necessary for the determination of the course of those proceedings. Moreover, he did not send copies of the decisions concerning the inheritance proceedings which, in view of his submissions, must have been issued by the court.
He did not explain why he should have been unable to send the relevant documents.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, 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
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
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.”
In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant failed to adduce evidence and provide crucial information requested by the Court. It therefore concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerJohn Hedigan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy