FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24431/10
Danilo ZORKO
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Danilo Zorko, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ig. He was not represented before the Court. 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 23 March 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his former wife E.B. in the Ljubljana Basic Court requesting the court to identify the items of common property and determine the share of each co-owner.
On 28 February 1995 the applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings against E.B.’s father, J.B., in the renamed Ljubljana Local Court with a view to determine ownership rights over the property.
Both sets of proceedings were joined.
On 28 October 2002 the Ljubljana Local Court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claims in part.
All parties appealed.
On 14 January 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court quashed the first‑instance court’s judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
At the hearing of 16 May 2006 the applicant asked for legal aid. Shortly afterwards, the hearing was adjourned at the applicant’s request and the applicant left the courtroom. A few minutes later he reappeared and informed the court that he did no longer wish to request legal aid.
On the same day the court delivered a written judgment. All parties again appealed.
On 21 March 2007 the Ljubljana Higher Court modified in part the first‑instance court’s judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 14 April 2007.
On 14 May 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
On 6 September 2007 the Ljubljana Local Court informed the applicant that an appeal on points of law may only be lodged by a person who has passed the bar exam. As a result, the court requested the applicant, who was not represented in these proceedings, to submit his law licence (potrdilo o opravljenem pravniškem državnem izpitu).
On 29 October 2007 the Ljubljana Local Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible as he had not submitted the requested document.
The applicant appealed against that decision. In his appeal he referred to his difficult financial situation and to the fact that he had not been granted legal aid, which had forced him to lodge the appeal on points of law himself.
By a decision of 7 January 2009 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court observed that the applicant was duly informed that he had not met the statutory requirements laid down for submitting an appeal on points of law and was warned in unambiguous terms about the consequences of a failure to comply with the requirements of the law.
Subsequently, on 1 April 2009, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 28 October 2009.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. He complained that the domestic courts did not grant him legal aid, which was unfair and which prevented him from using effectively the legal remedy available before the Supreme Court. He further complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible for non-compliance with the six months’ rule. They argued that the applicant improperly used the domestic remedies at his disposal as the appeal on points of law was rejected on procedural grounds because the applicant was not represented by a qualified lawyer. According to the Government, the date to be taken into account for the beginning of the six-month period was 14 April 2007, when the Ljubljana Higher Court’s decision was served on the applicant.
The applicant contested that argument. He stressed that the fact that the courts refused his request to be granted legal aid prevented him from being represented before the Supreme Court and thus from complying with the procedural requirements.
As to the applicant’s complaint about the lack of access to a court, the Court recalls, at the outset, that there is no right as such under the Convention to receive legal aid in cases concerning civil rights (see, for example, McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, §§ 47 and 48, ECHR 2002-III), although denial of legal aid could in certain circumstances amount to a failure to ensure a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).
In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant requested legal aid at the hearing of 16 May 2005 but immediately revoked this request. Therefore, as the applicant did not submit any documents showing that he had asked for legal aid at any other stage of the procedure, he cannot claim he was refused access to court.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard, the Court observes that, as the applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected on procedural grounds, 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 Ljubljana District Court decision of 21 March 2007, which was served on the applicant on 14 April 2007 (see mutatis mutandis Ribič v. Slovenia, no. 20965/03, § 27, 19 October 2010; Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI). The applicant lodged his application on 26 April 2010, which is more that six months after the date of the final decision.
It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy