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 ŠTAVBE v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 20526/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 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 Štavbe v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J. Hedigan, President,
Mr B.M.
Zupančič,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mrs A.
Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefevre, judges,
and Mr
V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20526/02) 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 Franc Štavbe (“the
applicant”), on 15 May 2002.
- 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
proceedings before the domestic courts to which he was a party were
unfair and excessively long. 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
20 September 2005 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 rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Zreče.
1. First set of proceedings
- On
19 March 1993 the applicant was allegedly beaten by local police
officers at a bus station and later also at the police station.
- At
an undetermined time, he instituted civil proceedings in the
Slovenjske Konjice Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v
Slovenjskih Konjicah) against the Ministry of Interior (“the
Ministry”), seeking damages for sustained injuries.
- The
judgment of the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) of
27 May 1998 dismissing the applicant's appeal on points of
law was most likely served on the applicant at least by July 1998.
2. Second set of proceedings
- On
19 May 1990 the applicant was allegedly beaten by four policemen.
- On
3 March 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the
Ministry in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno
sodišče v Mariboru, Enota Maribor) seeking damages in
the amount of 1,000,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 4,170
euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 21
May 1992 the court found the case out of its jurisdiction and
transferred it to the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno
sodišče v Ljubljana, Enota Ljubljana). The
applicant's appeal against this decision was rejected on 2 March 1993
for being too late.
On 28
June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 1
January 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče
v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case following
the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
On 12
October 2000 the court requested the Supreme Court to transfer the
case to the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court. On 28 January 2001 the
Supreme Court upheld the request and the case was transferred to the
Slovenjske Konjice Local Court.
On 8
October 2002 and 16 December 2003 the court held hearings. The
applicant did not attend the latter hearing and send a written excuse
only after the hearing had been held. At his request the court
scheduled a new hearing for 29 January 2004. This hearing was
adjourned at the request of the applicant until 17 February 2004. At
this hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment.
The
judgment dismissing the applicant's claim was served on the applicant
on 27 February 2004.
- On
14 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje
sodišče v Celju). Two days later, his legal
representative lodged a separate appeal.
On 28
October 2004 the court allowed one of the appeals, set aside the
first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for
re-examination.
- On
8 March 2005 the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court held a hearing and
again dismissed the applicant's claim.
On 5
April 2005 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
The
proceedings are still pending.
3. Third set of proceedings
- On
30 December 1996 the Slovenjske Konjice Police (Policijska postaja
Slovenjske Konjice) instituted proceedings against the applicant
in the Slovenjske Konjice Court of Minor Offences (Sodnik za
prekrške v Slovenjskih Konjicah) for driving a vehicle
while drunk and using a driving licence that had expired. On 15
January 1997 another set of proceeding was instituted against the
applicant for driving a vehicle while drunk.
On 18
and 22 September 1997, by two separate decisions, the Slovenjske
Konjice Court of Minor Offences convicted the applicant and imposed
on him a fine, a three-month's ban on driving and payment of court
fees. The decisions were served on the applicant on 29 September
1997.
On 7
October 1997 the applicant allegedly appealed against both decisions
by a letter sent from Germany.
On 10
June and 24 August 1998 respectively, the decisions were enforced and
the fines and fees imposed were recovered from the applicant. On 6
October 1998 the court informed the Slovenjske Konjice Administrative
Unit of the applicant's ban on driving.
On 24
December 1998 the applicant informed the court that he had appealed
against its decisions and that he had not yet received the decision
in this respect from the appellate court.
On 9
October 2000 the applicant lodged a claim for restitution of fines
collected from him following the decisions of 18 and 22 September
1997. He submitted to the court a certificate form the post office in
Germany that he did mail a letter to the court in 1997 allegedly
appealing against the two decisions.
His
claim was considered as a request for the annulment of the finality
clause (klavzula o pravnomočnosti) of the decisions of
18 and 22 September 1997.
On 5
February 2001 the Slovenjske Konjice Court of Minor Offences rejected
the request.
On 16
February 2001 the applicant appealed.
- On
28 November 2002 the Senate for Minor Offences (Senat za prekrške)
allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court
for re-examination. The decisions were served on the applicant on
19 April 2003.
- On
5 September 2003 the Slovenjske Konjice Court of Minor Offences
upheld the applicant's requests for the annulment of the finality
clause.
On 18
September 2003 the applicant reiterated his claim for reimbursement
of the fines and fees recovered from him together with interests.
On 23
September 2003 the court set aside the decisions of 22 September 1997
and issued decisions on the termination of the proceedings because
the statute of limitations had passed. The decisions were served on
the applicant on 30 September 2003.
On 13
October 2003 the court issued decisions for reimbursement of the fees
and fines recovered from the applicant. The court fees and one part
of fines recovered were paid to the applicant on 21 October 2003 and
the other part of the fines on 17 November 2003.
- On
22 October 2003 the applicant appealed against the decisions of 13
October 2003. They were set aside on 9 January 2004 by the Senate for
Minor Offences and remitted for re-examination. The decisions were
served on the applicant on 29 March 2004.
- On
5 April 2004 the court transferred the case to the State Attorney's
Office (DrZavno pravobranilstvo)
which, ultimately, on 26 June 2004 returned the case to the court and
declared that, in accordance with the Minor Offences Act (Zakon o
prekrških), only applicant
himself could claim interests directly from the State Attorney's
Office. The applicant was informed of this but has not yet lodged any
such claim.
4. Fourth set of proceedings
- The
applicant had a farm in Lemberg.
- On
4 September 1999 an unknown dog apparently slaughtered four of the
applicant's goats. The applicant indicated to the Šmarje pri
Jelšah Police (Policijska postaja Šmarje pri Jelšah)
that the dog might be his neighbour's.
- On
7 February 2000 the applicant made a criminal complaint with the
District Prosecutor's Office in Celje (OkroZno drZavno toZilstvo v
Celju) against the chief of the Šmarje pri Jelšah
Police for negligent work, because the police did not find the owner
of the dog.
- On
20 February 2000 Celje District Prosecutor's Office rejected the
criminal complaint.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the unfairness and 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 or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is
entitled to a fair and public 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
1. First set of proceedings
- In
accordance with Article 35 of the Convention, the Court may only
consider the complaints raised by the applicant, if they had been
introduced with the Court within the delay of six months from the day
on which the final decision was taken in this respect by the domestic
authorities.
- The
Court notes that the first set of proceedings was terminated, at the
latest, by July 1998 when the decision of the Supreme Court was
served on the applicant. This is more than six months before 15 May
2002, the day the applicant seized the Court.
It
follows that all the applicant's complaints with regard to the first
set of proceedings must be rejected for failure to comply with the
six-months rule within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4
of the Convention.
2. Second and third sets of proceedings
a) Fairness
- In
accordance with Article 35 of the Convention, the Court may only
consider the complaints raised by the applicant, after the applicant
had exhausted all domestic remedies.
- In
this respect the Court notes that the second and third set of
proceedings are still pending. Accordingly, the applicant's
complaints are premature and must be rejected for non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and
4 of the Convention.
b) Length
i. Second set of proceedings
- 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.
ii. Third set of proceedings
- The
period to be taken into consideration with regard to the third set of
proceedings began on 30 December 1996, the day the police instituted
proceedings against the applicant in the Slovenjske Konjice Court of
Minor Offences, and is still pending. It has therefore lasted over
nine years and nine months and five instances have been involved.
- First,
the Court notes that the applicant's letter of 7 October 1997, by
which he appealed against the two decisions of September 1997,
apparently never reached the domestic courts. However, in his letter
of 24 December 1998 the applicant informed the court of his
appeal. The period of nearly one year and three months which elapsed
between these two dates evidently cannot be attributed to the
domestic courts.
- Next,
the Court observes that the applicant was informed of the
communication of the State Attorney's Office to the first-instance
court that in accordance with the domestic legislation only the
applicant himself can claim interests directly from the State
Attorney's Office. Since he has not done so, the period of over two
years and three months, which elapsed since 26 June 2004, is
imputable to him.
- The
Court notes that, in effect, it took the domestic courts
approximately six years and five months to examine the two cases
brought against the applicant in five instances.
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its
case-law on the subject (see, inter alia, Viscomi v. Italiy
(dec.), no. 52927/99, 8 February 2001), the Court considers that
complaint concerning the length of the third set of the proceedings
is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- The
Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an
effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable
complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief
(see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no.
75529/01, § 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the
complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is
inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the
applicant did not have an arguable claim that his right to an
effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated.
Therefore, this claim does not reveal any appearance of violation of
this provision.
Accordingly,
this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. Fourth set of proceedings
- The Court recalls that the right to have criminal
proceedings instituted against a third person and to have the person
concerned convicted is not as such guaranteed by the Convention (see,
Kubiszyn v. Poland (dec.), no. 37437/97, 21 September 1999).
It therefore finds that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and
must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3
and 4 of the Convention.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
40.
The Government acknowledged that what was at stake in the second set
of proceedings was of importance to the applicant who did not
substantially contribute to the delays in the proceedings. The latter
occurred, due to the reform of the judiciary which took effect in
1995.
- The
applicant did not comment the Government's observations.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 28 June 1994, the day
when the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, and
has not yet ended. The relevant period has therefore lasted over
twelve years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction. Due to
a remittal four instances have been involved.
- 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 (see, for example, Majhen
v. Slovenia, no. 75773/01, 30 March 2006).
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 1,000,000 tolars (approximately 2,170 euros) for
the damages caused by the alleged police brutality.
- The
Government argued that such claim does not fall within the Court's
jurisdiction, since it is of a fourth-instance nature.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found
and the damage claimed. It therefore rejects the claim.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly the Court
makes no award under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares admissible the complaint about the
length of the second set of proceedings and the remainder of the
application;
- 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;
- Dismisses the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent
Berger John Hedigan
Registrar President
