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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Franc FILKOVIC v Slovenia - 20441/08 [2011] ECHR 2032 (22 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2032.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2032 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
20441/08
by Franc FILKOVIČ
against
Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde,
President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen
Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Franc Filkovič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Šmarje Pri Jelšah. He was not represented before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 July 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company Z.T. in the Celje District Court seeking damages for the injuries sustained in a car accident.
On 21 January 2000 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claim in part.
The applicant appealed.
On 17 May 2001 the Celje Higher Court quashed a part of the first-instance judgment concerning the monthly allowance and remitted it for fresh examination. Furthermore, it partly modified the amount awarded to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage and rejected the remainder of the applicant’s appeal.
On 21 September 2001 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court in connection with the part of the first- and second-instance courts judgments rejecting his claims.
After re-examination, on 13 January 2003, the Celje District Court upheld the applicant’s claims concerning the monthly allowance.
On 16 January 2006, further to the Celje District Court enquiry, the applicant confirmed that he wished to maintain the pending appeal on points of law.
On 27 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected it as the value of the claim fell below the statutory threshold.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates at the outset that, according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with an individual application lodged with it after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to generally recognised rules of international law, and within six months of the date on which the final decision has been taken.
In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant availed himself of an appeal on points of law, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds as the claim was below the statutory threshold.
Accordingly, the final domestic decision to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the six-month period within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is the Celje District Court decision of 13 January 2003, which was served on the applicant on 16 April 2003 (see mutatis mutandis Ribič v. Slovenia, no. 20965/03, § 27, 19 October 2010; Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI). The applicant lodged his application on 22 April 2008, which is more that six months after the date of the final decision.
It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President