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]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF KRALJ v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 21313/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 April
2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kralj v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde,
President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen
Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 20 March 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 21313/06) 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 Alojz Kralj (“the applicant”), on
14 April 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Vrviščar, a lawyer
practising in Kamnik. The Slovenian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
-
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 that
there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive
length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention).
- On
19 February 2009 the President of the Section decided to inform the
Government of the application and to request them to submit
information under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court. Further
to receipt of the information requested, on 30
September 2010, the President decided to invite the
Government to submit, if they so wish, written observations on the
admissibility and merits of the case (Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the
Rules). In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was
assigned to a committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- On 8 November 1993 A.D. brought an action against the
applicant in the Kamnik Local Court. She sought that the applicant
ceases to use her plot of land for other reasons than for his right
of passage.
- On
27 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against
A.D., seeking that she removes her car blocking the passage to his
outbuildings. Both proceedings were joined.
- On
28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect to Slovenia.
- In
1995 the case was reassigned following the restructuring of the
courts.
- On
21 June 1996 a hearing was held.
- On
5 November 1996 a hearing was held where both parties requested for
it to be postponed, since there were talks of reaching a settlement.
- On
10 January 1997 the first-instance court sent an inquiry to the
parties about the developments regarding the settlement. They did not
respond.
- Between
16 March 1999 and 18 October 1999 three hearings were held.
- On
8 October 1999 the first-instance court delivered a written judgment,
partly upholding both claims, the applicant’s and A.D.’s.
Both parties appealed.
- On
31 January 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s
appeal but upheld A.D.’s appeal and remitted the case for
re-examination.
- On
15 May 2001 a hearing was held.
- Two
hearings scheduled for 28 August 2001 and 27 September 2001 were
rescheduled on the request of the applicant due to his illness.
- At
the end of January 2002 the case was reassigned to a new judge.
- On
31 May 2004 a hearing was held.
- On
27 July 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s
claim. The applicant appealed.
- On
23 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s
appeal and again remitted the case for re-examination.
- On
15 November 2005 the Kamnik Local Court rejected the applicant’s
claim. The applicant appealed.
- On
24 May 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s
appeal. That decision was served on the applicant on 18 July 2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- For
relevant domestic law see judgment Ribič
v. Slovenia (no. 20965/03, 19
October 2010, §19).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND
13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the proceedings to which he was a party had
been excessively long. 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 excessively long 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
Court notes that the present case concerns proceedings that were
terminated before the 2006 Act came into force and the effectiveness
of remedies, in particular of the “just satisfaction claim”
provided by section 25 of the 2006 Act, implemented on 1 January
2007. The case is thus similar to the case Ribič v. Slovenia
(no. 20965/03, 19 October 2010). In that case
the Court found that the legal remedies at the applicant’s
disposal were ineffective (ibid., §§ 37-42).
- The
Court finds that the Government have not submitted any convincing
arguments which would require the Court to distinguish the present
case from the above mentioned case.
- 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 28
June 1994, the date the Convention entered into force with respect to
Slovenia, and ended on 18 July 2006, when the second-instance court
decision of 24 May 2006 was served on the applicant.
- 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).
- The
Court observes that there had indeed been two periods during the
proceedings where the applicant did play a role in the delays. At the
early stages of the proceedings a hearing had been postponed on the
request of both parties in the light of the possibility of reaching a
settlement (see paragraphs 10-12). And later on, two hearings were
postponed on his request for medical reasons (see paragraph 16). The
time attributable to the applicant therefore amounts to two years and
approximately five months.
- With
respect to the conduct of the domestic courts, the Court notes that
regardless of the prospects of a settlement among the parties it took
the first-instance court more than four years to deliver the first
judgment (see paragraphs 6 and 13 above). Furthermore, after the
first remittal it took the first-instance court again more than four
years to deliver a judgment and there had been a period of complete
inactivity for over two years (see paragraphs 17-18 above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its
case-law on the subject (see, Vidic v. Slovenia, no. 54836/00,
§§ 17 24, 3 August 2006; Kračun v. Slovenia,
no. 18831/02, §§ 57-60, 30 November 2006 and Korda
v. Slovenia, no. 25195/02, 30 November 2006, §§ 30-33)
the Court considers that length of the proceedings, which lasted
almost ten years at two levels of jurisdiction, 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 for a case to be heard within a reasonable
time (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §
156, ECHR 2000-XI).
- The
Court recalls its findings in the case of Ribič v. Slovenia
(see paragraph 27 above) and notes that the Government
have not submitted any convincing arguments which would require it to
distinguish the present application from the aforementioned case. The
Court therefore 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction although
invited to do so. In these circumstances, the Court holds that there
is no reason to award any sum under Article 41 of the Convention (see
Ciucci v. Italy, no. 68345/01, § 33, 1 June 2006).
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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2012, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Ann
Power-Forde
Deputy Registrar President
