FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF
PAŠIĆ v. SLOVENIA
(Application no.
41060/07)
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 Pašić 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. 41060/07) 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 Hasan Pašić (“the applicant”), on
3 September 2007.
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 of the lack of an effective
domestic remedy in this respect.
On 14 March 2012 the
application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Velenje.
On 10 August 2001 the applicant instituted
proceedings against the insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav before the
Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the
workplace.
Between 18 March 2002 and 3 June 2002 the
first-instance court held two hearings and appointed one expert.
At the last hearing the court rendered a judgment
upholding the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties appealed.
On 8 November 2002 the first-instance court
referred the case to the Celje Higher Court.
On 4 December 2003 the Celje Higher Court
returned the case-file since the appeal of the defendant had not been served on
the applicant. The case was again referred to the appeal court on 3 March 2004.
On 4 May 2005 the Celje Higher Court delivered a
judgment remitting the case in part for re-examination. The appeal court found
that the amount of compensation had been erroneously calculated.
On 7 September 2005 the Celje District Court
held an opening hearing. Since the applicant lodged a preliminary submission
only two days before the scheduled hearing the court adjourned the main hearing
to 17 October 2005.
On 17 October 2005 the court held the second
hearing and delivered its judgment. The defendant appealed.
On 1 February 2006 the applicant lodged a
request for the corrigendum of the judgment. The judgment was corrected on 10
February 2006.
On 25 January 2007 the Celje Higher Court
rejected the appeal. The judgment was served on the parties on 5 March 2007.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
16. For relevant domestic law see Nezirović v.
Slovenia ((dec.) no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the
proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in 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
The Court 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 (see Maksimovič v. Slovenia,
no. 28662/05, §§ 21-24, 22 June 2010). It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 10 August 2001, the day the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celje
District Court, and ended on 5 March 2007, the day the Celje Higher Court’s
judgment of was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted five years and
seven months at 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 (see, Ribič v.
Slovenia, no. 20965/03, §§ 28-33, 19 October 2010; Pažon v.
Slovenia, no. 17337/02, §§ 16-18, 6 April 2006; Cvetrežnik v.
Slovenia, no. 75653/01, §§ 16-18, 30 March 2006), and in particular the
delays at the appeal stage (see paragraphs 9-11 above) and the fact that there were
no significant delays attributable to the applicant, 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
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 view of its findings
in the case Maksimovič v. Slovenia (cited above, §§ 29-30), the
Court finds 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.
III. 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 a claim for just
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him
any sum on that account.
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.
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
