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 ČOP v. SLOVENIA
(Application
no. 6539/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 December 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 Čop 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 V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A.
Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mrs I. Ziemele,
Mrs I.
Berro-Lefevre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 6539/02) 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 Anton Čop (“the applicant”),
on 26 January 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Vrviščar, a lawyer
practicing in Kamnik, Slovenia. 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
13 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 examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kamnik.
- On
12 October 1993 the applicant lodged an action for enforcement with
the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v
Ljubljani) against a company named Avtotehna (“AT”).
He sought a collection of overdue salaries as they were determined by
a labour-court judgment of 16 October 1993.
On 10
December 1993 the court allowed the enforcement.
On 15
December 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision because
the court failed to decide on cost and expenses of the proceedings.
At an
undetermined time AT objected the enforcement and the court stayed
the enforcement.
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 due to the
reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
On 12
February 1996 AT amended its objection and informed the court of the
amount of debt the company estimated to have had towards the
applicant.
On 11
February 1999 the applicant filed a request for supervision with the
Ministry of Justice, because the court had not yet delivered a
decision.
On 10
March 1999 the court referred AT to start contentious proceeding in
order to challenge the enforcement order.
- On
9 April 1999 AT instituted civil proceedings in the Ljubljana Local
Court against the applicant, challenging the enforcement of the
judgment of 16 October 1993.
On 2
November 2000 the court invited the applicant to reply to the claim,
which he did on 11 December 2000.
On 15
October 2002 the applicant lodged a counter claim against AT.
On 9
November 2004 the court held the first hearing.
The
hearing held on 14 December 2004 was adjourned in agreement with the
parties, because the Pension and Invalidity Fund failed to provide
the evidence the court had sought.
On 1
February 2005 the court held a hearing which the applicant did not
attend. The court decided to terminate proceedings.
On 1
March 2005 the Court decided to reopen the proceedings in order to
appoint a financial expert, as requested by AT.
The
proceedings are still pending.
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. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which 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 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.
- 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.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1
- 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 ten
years and four months and two 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.
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
- 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 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 that there is no call to award the
applicant just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent
Berger John Hedigan
Registrar President
