BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF ZIDOV v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 27701/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
December 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Zidov v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C. Bîrsan,
President,
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele,
Mrs I.
Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30
November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 27701/02) against the
Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Slovenian national, Mr
Ivan Zidov (“the applicant”),
on 10 July 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by the Verstovšek
lawyers. The Slovenian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
- The
applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the
length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which he was
a party 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 of the Convention).
- On
7 September 2004 the
Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of
the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect to the
Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Velenje.
- On
18 February 1998 and on 27 November 1995 the applicant was allegedly
injured in an accident at work. The applicant's employer had taken
out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
- On
9 July 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT and
his employer in the Celje District Court (OkroZno sodišče
v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,700,795 Slovenian
tolars (approximately 19,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 15
November 2001 the judge to whom the case had been assigned was
promoted and the case was subsequently assigned to a new judge.
Between
29 June 2000 and 20 April 2005 the applicant lodged five preliminary
written submissions.
Between
16 June 1999 and 26 April 2002 he made five requests that a date be
set for a hearing.
Of at
least five hearings held between 14 May 2001 and 21 September 2005
none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During
the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.
At
the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The
judgment of 21 September 2005, rejecting the applicant's claim, was
served on the applicant on an unspecified date.
- On
10 January 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.
The
proceedings are pending on the appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.
He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which 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...”
- In
substance, the applicant further complained that the remedies
available for excessive legal proceedings in Slovenia were
ineffective. Article 13 of the Convention 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.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- The
applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
- The
Court notes that the present application is similar to the cases of
Belinger and Lukenda (see Belinger v. Slovenia
(dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001, and Lukenda v.
Slovenia, no. 23032/02, 6 October 2005). In those cases the Court
dismissed the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies because it found that the legal remedies at the applicant's
disposal were ineffective. The Court recalls its
findings in the Lukenda judgment that the violation of the
right to a trial within a reasonable time is a systemic problem
resulting from inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the
administration of justice.
- As
regards the instant case, the Court finds that the Government have
not submitted any convincing arguments which would require the Court
to distinguish it from its established case-law.
- The
Court further notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 9 July 1998, the day
the applicant instituted proceedings with the Celje District Court,
and has not yet ended. The relevant period has therefore lasted over
eight years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction.
- 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, the Court considers that in the instant case
the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable-time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
2. Article 13
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by
the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Lukenda,
cited above) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in
the present case.
- Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the present case there has been a
violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy under
domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling
upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time,
as set forth in Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,600 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed approximately EUR 1,060 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court.
- The
Government argued that the claim was too high.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. The Court also notes that the applicant's lawyers, who also
represented the applicant in Lukenda (cited above), lodged
nearly 400 applications which, apart from the facts, are
essentially the same as this one. Accordingly, in the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant
the sum of EUR 1,000 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,600 (five
thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus
any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent
Berger Corneliu Bîrsan
Registrar President
