Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/76212.01-en-20060309/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 06:01:36
Document Index: 644895126

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 76212', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 156', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

DREU v. SLOVENIA
DREU v. SLOVENIA About Project
CASE OF DREU v. SLOVENIA
(Application no. 76212/01)
This version was rectified on 8 June 2006
In the case of Dreu v. Slovenia,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 76212/01) 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 Branko Dreu (“the applicant”), on 7 March 2000.
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Šoštanj.
1. Proceedings against ZT (first set of proceedings)
6. On 15 June 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
On 22 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) against ZT seeking damages in the amount of 5,399,253 tolars (approximately 22,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 1 April 1994 the court held a hearing and decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 May 1994.
7. On 26 May 1994 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 19 October 1994 the court dismissed both appeals.
The decision was served on the applicant on 15 November 1994.
8. On 28 November 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.
On 29 November 1996 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, but allowed the ZT’s appeal and reduced the awarded damages.
The decision was served on the applicant on 6 January 1997.
9. On 5 March 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 26 January 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) declared the case admissible and on 7 December 2000, ruling on the merits, dismissed the appeal.
The decision was served on the applicant on 28 December 2000.
2. Proceedings against ZT and Velenje Lignite Mine (second and third sets of proceedings)
10. On 18 November 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
On 27 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,560,000 tolars (approximately 6,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.
11. On 1 June 1997 ZT instituted proceedings in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) against the applicant seeking 500,000 tolars for access payment of damages in the first set of proceedings.
12. On 4 September 1997 the court decided to join the two cases.
On 15 March 1999 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 15 June 1999 the court held a hearing and decided that it would issue a written judgment.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part and ZT’s claim in whole, was served on the applicant on 24 June 1999.
13. On 28 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 10 May 2000 the court dismissed the appeal.
The decision was served on the applicant on 5 June 2000.
14. On 4 July 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
On 5 April 2001 the court dismissed the appeal.
The decision was served on the applicant on 14 May 2001.
15. On 8 June 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 18 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the case admissible.
16. The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
17. 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:
18. The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
19. The applicant contested that argument, claiming that the remedies available were not effective.
20. The Court notes that the present application is similar to the cases of Belinger and Lukenda (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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The period to be taken into consideration with respect to the first set of the proceedings began on 28 June 1994, the day when the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, and ended on 28 December 2000, the day the Constitutional Court decision was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted five years and six months for four levels of jurisdiction.
The period to be taken into consideration with respect to the second set of the proceedings began on 27 December 1996, the day the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celje Local Court, and ended on 18 November 2002, the day the Constitutional Court decision was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted nearly five years and eleven months for four levels of jurisdiction.1
25. 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, in particular before the first-instance court, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement.
There has accordingly been no breach of Article 6 § 1 with respect to the first set of the proceedings and a breach of Article 6 § 1 with respect to the second set of the proceedings.
26. 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.
27. 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.
29. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
30. The Government contested the claim.
31. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 1,200 under that head.
32. The applicant also claimed approximately EUR 1,610 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
33. The Government argued that the claim was too high.
34. 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 nearly 400 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.
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with respect to the first set of the proceedings;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with respect to the second set of the proceedings;
1 Rectified on 8 June 2006: In the former version the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 23 read:
“The period to be taken into consideration with respect to the second set of the proceedings began on 28 June 1994, the day when the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, and ended on 18 November 2002, the day the Constitutional Court decision was served on the applicant. It therefore lasted nearly eight years and five months for four levels of jurisdiction”.
DREU v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT