Přehled
Rozhodnutí
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33573/02
by Kata GAVRANIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 November 2006 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 regard to the above application lodged on 11 June 2001,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Kata Gavranič, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1965 and lives in Velenje. She was represented before the Court by the Verstovšek lawyers. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 November 1994 the applicant was injured while leaving the building where she was working. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
On 22 July 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 355,538 tolars (approximately 1,480 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 1 July 1997 the court held a hearing.
On 3 July 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 26 November 1997 and 29 March 1998 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 14 May 1998 the court held a hearing and heard five witnesses.
On 14 September 1998 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 26 November 1998 the court held a hearing, heard the applicant and two witnesses. The court decided to issue a written judgment concerning the liability for damages.
The judgment finding in favour of the applicant was served on her on 10 December 1998. The decision concerning the amount of damages to be awarded was severed for further examination.
On 28 December 1998 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 23 June 1999 the court dismissed the ZT’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 August 1999.
On 17 September 1999 ZT lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 24 May 2000 the court allowed the ZT’s appeal in part and decided that both parties are equally liable for the accident.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 12 July 2000.
On 28 July 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 11 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2001.
In the meanwhile, on 9 October 2000, the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions with the Celje Local Court concerning the amount of damages to be awarded.
On 26 October 2000 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a medical expert.
On 3 November 2000 the court appointed a medical expert.
On 5 February 2001 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 12 April 2001 the court held a hearing. The court decided to issue a written judgment.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim for damages in part, was served on the applicant on 25 April 2001.
On 9 May 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 19 June 2002, the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and remitted the case for fresh examination of the claim concerning the costs and expenses.
On 10 July 2002 the Celje Local Court issued a new decision concerning the costs and expenses.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Celje Higher Court which, on 20 December 2002, allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the amounts awarded in terms of costs and expenses.
The decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2003.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial was violated by an excessive length of proceedings. In substance, she also complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. She 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) Article 6 § 1
The period to be taken into consideration began on 22 July 1996, the day the applicant instituted proceedings with the Celje Local Court, and ended on 16 January 2003, the day the Celje Higher Court’s decision was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted nearly six years and six months for four levels of jurisdiction. Due to remittals decisions were rendered in eight instances.
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).
Despite the fact that the first-instance court heard seven witnesses and appointed a medical expert, the Court does not find the domestic proceedings particularly intricate.
The Court acknowledges that the case was of some importance to the applicant and that her conduct in the proceedings did not produce any significant delays in the proceedings.
The above findings notwithstanding, the Court considers that the domestic courts involved in the impugned proceedings examined the applicant’s claims swiftly. Indeed, it took the first-instance court over eleven months to hold the first hearing, but the speedy developments in the continuation of the proceedings outweigh this initial delay.
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 not excessive and did not fail to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. Moreover, the overall length of the proceedings, taking into consideration the number of instances involved in the proceedings, still appears to be reasonable (see, e.g., Cesarini v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245‑B).
It follows that the applicant’s complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible n accordance with Article 35 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention.
b) Article 13
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 declared inadmissible in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Vincent Berger John Hedigan
Registrar President