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 £5, 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 ŠRAMEL v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 39154/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
December 2007
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 Šramel v. Slovenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C. Bîrsan,
President,
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
Mrs E.
Fura-Sandström,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre,
judges,
and Mr S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 39154/02) 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 Alojz
Šramel (“the applicant”), on 17 October 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer
practising in Celje. 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
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
23 October 2006 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 examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Šmarje pri Jelšah.
- On
8 January 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident which
occurred when the applicant was at work. The applicant's employer had
taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
- On
13 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in
the Celje District Court (OkroZno sodišče v Celju)
seeking damages in the amount of 2,608,038 Slovenian tolars
(approximately 10,870 euros – EUR) for the injuries sustained.
Between
1 September 1997 and 27 September 1999 the applicant made six
requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 5
January 2000 he lodged preliminary written submissions.
During
the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At
the first hearing, held on 29 February 2000, the court decided to
deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's
claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 April 2000.
- On
21 April 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje
sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 22
November 2001, the Celje District Court issued a supplement to the
judgment (dopolnilna sodba). On 20 December 2001 the applicant
also appealed against the supplement to the judgment.
On 8
August 2002 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant's and ZT's
appeals in part. The court reduced the damages awarded in the
first-instance proceedings and remitted the case to the
first-instance court for re-examination as regards the costs of the
proceedings. The judgment was served on the applicant on 1 October
2002.
- On
7 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with
the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
He
also requested that a judge should withdraw from the proceedings. On
5 July 2004 the President of the Supreme Court rejected the request.
On 1
September 2005 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points
of law. The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 October 2005.
- Meanwhile,
on 16 September 2002, the first-instance court had issued a decision
concerning the costs of the proceedings. The applicant's appeal
against that decision was dismissed by the Celje Higher Court on
7 January 2004.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
1. The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial
without undue Delay
- The
Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay
(Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja,
Official Journal, No. 49/2006) has been implemented since 1
January 2007. Under its sections 1 and 2, the right to a trial
within a reasonable time is guaranteed for a party to court
proceedings, a participant under the Act governing non-contentious
proceedings and an injured party in criminal proceedings.
- Section
25 lays down the following transitional rules in relation to
applications already pending before the Court:
Section 25 - Just satisfaction for damage sustained
prior to implementation of this Act
“(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a
trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed
a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the
date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney's Office shall
offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction
within four months after the date of receipt of the case referred by
the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall
submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney's Office within
two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State
Attorney's Office. The State Attorney's Office shall decide on the
proposal as soon as possible and within a period of four months at
the latest. ...
(2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in
paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney's
Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four
months after the date on which the party filed its proposal, the
party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act.
The party may bring an action within six months after receiving the
State Attorney's Office reply that the party's proposal referred to
in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of
the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney's
Office to decide to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type
or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act
concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.”
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 length of 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, in particular
after the implementation of the Act on the Protection of the Right to
a Trial without undue Delay (the “2006 Act”) from 1
January 2007.
- The
applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies
available were not effective.
- The
Court notes that section 25 of the 2006 Act explicitly refers to
proceedings before international courts and provides for certain
remedies in cases of domestic proceedings which had terminated before
1 January 2007. However, the Court found in the Grzinčič
judgment that the conditions
laid down in that section were not fulfilled as regards applications
concerning terminated proceedings which had been notified to the
Slovenian Government before 1 January 2007, such as the present one
(see Grzinčič v.
Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 67, 3 May 2007).
- The
Court therefore notes that the present application is similar to that
examined in the relevant part of the Grzinčič
judgment (cited above, § 68),
in which 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 finds that the Government have not submitted any convincing
arguments which would require the Court to depart 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.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 13 May 1997, the day
the applicant instituted proceedings with the Celje District Court,
and ended on 17 October 2005, the day the Supreme Court's judgment
was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted about eight years
and five months for 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, 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). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by
the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Grzinčič,
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 EUR 30,000 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 3,200 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,124 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government argued that the claim was too high.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. The Court also notes that the applicant's lawyers, who also
represented the applicant in Lukenda (cited above), lodged
hundreds of applications which, apart from the facts, are essentially
the same as this one. Accordingly, 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 the sum of EUR
1,000 for the proceedings before the Court.
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 the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,200
(three thousand two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage
and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 13 December 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Corneliu Bîrsan
Registrar President
