FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF
MEGLIČ v. SLOVENIA
(Application no.
29119/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 April 2013
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 Meglič v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Angelika Nußberger,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki,
Paul Lemmens,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 29119/06) 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 Stanko Meglič (“the applicant”),
on 4 July 2006.
The applicant was
represented by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. 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. He also complained under Article 13 of the
Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of the
excessive length of the proceedings.
On 30 March 2009 the
application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mirna.
On 3 January 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings
against his employer before the Novo Mesto District Court seeking compensation
for damage sustained at the workplace.
On 6 February 2002 the first-instance court held the
first hearing. The court appointed two experts. The experts submitted their
reports on 16 April 2002 and 17 January 2003.
On 10 March 2003 the court held the second
hearing and rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. Both
parties appealed.
On 18 January 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court
remitted the case for re-examination in the part concerning the amount of
compensation.
Between 19 April 2004 and 26 November 2004 the
first-instance court held three hearings.
On 21 January 2005 the court rendered a judgment
upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.
On 22 February 2006 the appeal court rendered
judgment amending the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal
on points of law.
On 26 February 2007 the applicant lodged a
supervisory appeal with the first-instance court in accordance with the Act on
the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).
On 13 April 2008 the president of the Supreme
Court rejected the supervisory appeal on procedural grounds.
On 17 December 2008 the Supreme Court rejected
the appeal on points of law. The decision was served on the applicant on 16
January 2009.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
For relevant
domestic law see Tomažič v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02,
December
2007).
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 ...”
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
Firstly, the Government argued that the duration
of proceedings until 1 January 2007, the date when the new legislation became
operational, was not excessive and secondly, they pleaded non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies for the part of the proceedings before the Supreme Court,
which were conducted after 1 January 2007.
The applicant contested these arguments.
The Court observes that the transitional provision of the 2006 Act,
namely section 25, provides for the procedure to be followed in respect of
applications where the violation of the “reasonable time” requirement has
already ceased to exist and which were lodged with the Court before
1 January 2007. As the proceedings to which the applicant was a party
continued before the Supreme Court after the new legislation became operational
the above provision does not apply to the applicant’s case.
22. As regards the application of
other provisions of the 2006 Act, in particular its section 19, the Court notes
that the proceedings in the present case had been finally resolved before the
2006 Act became operational and have subsequently continued before the Supreme
Court. Having regard to the 2006 Act as in force at the material time (see by
contrast, Žurej v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 10386/03, § 17, 16 March 2010), the
applicant had no possibility to claim compensation for the delays incurred in
the proceedings (see mutatis mutandis, Tomažič v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, §§ 41-45, 13 December 2007 and Lesjak v. Slovenia,
no. 33946/03, §§ 54-55, 21 July 2009).
The Government’s
objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies should therefore be
dismissed.
The Court further notes that the application is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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 3 January 2001, the day the applicant instituted proceedings before the Novo
Mesto District Court, and ended on 16 January 2009, the day the Supreme Court’s
judgment was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted eight years at three
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 (see Šramel v.
Slovenia, no. 39154/02, §§ 21-23, 13 December 2007; Lakota v.
Slovenia, no. 33488/02, §§ 26-29, 7 December 2006; and Marič
v. Slovenia, no. 35489/02, §§ 21-23, 21 December 2006), 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).
In the present case the Court is not persuaded
that the applicant could have had access to the compensation claim and finds
the remedies of the 2006 Act ineffective (see paragraphs 21-22 above). As
regards the remedies available prior to the implementation of the 2006 Act, the
Court sees no reason to take a different approach from that taken in earlier
cases in which those remedies were considered ineffective (see Lukenda v.
Slovenia, no. 23032/02, 6 October 2005).
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 5,000 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
award him EUR 3,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 2,832 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the Court notes that the
applicant’s representative charged EUR 2,380 for drafting the application
submitted to the Court. The Court notes the representative doubled his fees due
to the representation before an international court, which the Court finds
rather unreasonable, since, for example, he was allowed to use Slovenian before
the Court. The Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 1,000
under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
1. Declares by a majority the application
admissible;
2. Holds by six votes to one that there has
been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention;
3. Holds by six votes to one
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 3,200 (three thousand and two hundred
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
4. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the
applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 April 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Mark
Villiger
Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and
Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Pejchal is
annexed to this judgment.
M.V.
C.W.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PEJCHAL
I disagree with the majority’s finding of a
violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial within “a reasonable time”
for the reasons given already in my separate opinion in the case Podbelšek
Bračič v. Slovenia, no. 42224/04.
