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 GOBEC v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 28275/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 April
2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gobec 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 3 April 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 28275/06) 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 Srečko Gobec (“the applicant”),
on 8 June 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr D. Mikša, 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. 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
26 October 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a
committee of three Judges. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Rogaška Slatina.
- On
28 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the
Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the
workplace.
- 20
August 2002 the first-instance issued a decision on costs. The
defendant appealed.
- On
5 February 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the appeal.
- On
4 May 2004 the Celje District Court delivered an interim judgment
deliberating on the responsibility and reserving the determination on
the amount of compensation and costs for the final judgment. The
defendant appealed.
- On
11 May 2006 the Celje Higher Court upheld the first-instance
judgment.
- On
22 March 2007 the first-instance court delivered a judgment, which
was served on the applicant on 6 July 2007.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- For
relevant domestic law see the judgment Maksimovič
v. Slovenia (no. 28662/05,
22 June 2010).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the 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 ..., everyone is entitled to a ... 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
- 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 case of
Maksimovič v. Slovenia
(see paragraph 12 above). In that case 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 (ibid., §§ 21–24).
- 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 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 April 1997, the day
the applicant instituted proceedings with the Celje District Court,
and ended on 6 July 2007, the day the first-instance court’s
judgment of 22 March 2007 was served on the applicant. It
therefore lasted ten years and two 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, for example, Hriberšek v.
Slovenia, no. 36054/02, §§ 16-18, 27 April
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 view of its findings concerning the exhaustion of
domestic remedies (see paragraphs 17–18 above) and having
regard to the fact that the arguments put forward by the Government
have already been rejected 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.
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 10,000 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 him EUR 8,000 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 660 for the costs and expenses incurred in
the proceedings before the Court. This claim was supported by
itemised list of expenses similar to the lists normally submitted to
the courts in domestic proceedings.
- 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,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant,
who was represented by a lawyer, the full sum
claimed under this head, namely EUR 660.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay within three months, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR
8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
660 (six hundred sixty 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 April 2012, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde
Deputy Registrar President
