CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s394C7864 { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffff00 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s636D9C1 { width:38.55pt; display:inline-block } .s20D81CDA { width:156.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20844/03 by Olga TRNOVŠEK against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   June   2010 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabet Fura, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2001, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to Protocol No. 14, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mrs Olga Trnovšek, a Slovenian national who was born in 1948 and lived in Ljubečna. She died on 19 March 2006, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 24 September 2007, the late applicant's husband Mr Janez Trnovšek, who was the late applicant's sole heir, declared that he wished to pursue her application before the Court. On 13 November 2009 Mr Trnovšek died. On 18 February 2010, the late applicant's daughter, Mrs Lidija Slapnik, declared that she wished to pursue the application before the Court. Like the late applicant, her daughter, who lives in Ljubečna, is represented before the Court by B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. On 6 January 2010 the Celje District Court declared that Mrs Slapnik was Mr Trnovšek's sole heir. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 24 June 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund (Zavod za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje) in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani ), seeking the right to the 1 st category of invalidity pension for the period between 1 July 1998 and 6 July 2001. On 11 December 2003, after three hearings and an appointment of a medical expert which was unsuccessfully challenged by the applicant, the court decided to deliver a written judgment, dismissing the applicant's request. On 5 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court ( Višje delovno in socialno sodišče ). On 1 April 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 13 May 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ). On 12 September 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. The judgment was served on the applicant on 2   October 2006. Proceedings under the 2006 Act On 22 February 2007 the respondent Government were requested by the Court to confirm whether Section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) would be applied in the present case and, in the affirmative, to submit a copy of the friendly settlement proposal. On 23 May 2007 the State Attorney's Office sent a friendly settlement offer to the applicant. On 22 June 2007 the applicant's lawyer replied that the friendly settlement proposal was not adequate. On 26 July 2007 the respondent Government informed the Court that on 23 July 2007 the State Attorney's Office had sent a letter to the applicant's lawyer stating that they had received information from the Central Register of the population that the applicant had died on 19 March 2006. Since under domestic law non-pecuniary claims could not be inherited if the decision awarding the non-pecuniary damages had not yet become final (Section 184 of the Code of Obligations – see below), their offer for a friendly settlement was no longer valid. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant provisions of 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 – the “2006 Act”) can be found in the Grzinčič v. Slovenia , no. 26867/02, §§ 38-40 and 48, ECHR 2007 ‑ V (extracts). Moreover, Section 184 of the Code of Obligations ( Obligacijski zakonik , Official Journal no. 83/2001) reads as follows: “1. The claim for repayment of non-pecuniary damage shall pass to the heirs if it was recognised by a final decision or a written agreement. 2. Under the same conditions, this claim may be the subject of assignment, offset and enforcement.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Slovenian courts under Article 6 of the Convention. In substance, the applicant further complained that the remedies available for excessive legal proceedings in Slovenia were ineffective. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court must first examine whether Mrs Lidija Slapnik has standing to pursue the application originally lodged by the applicant Mrs Olga Trnovšek who died on 19 March 2006, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 24 September 2007, the late applicant's husband Mr Janez Trnovšek, who was the late applicant's sole heir at the time, declared that he wished to pursue her application before the Court. On 13 November 2009 Mr   Trnovšek died. On 18 February 2010, the late applicant's daughter, Mrs Lidija Slapnik, declared that she wished to pursue her application before the Court. In the framework of the inheritance proceedings, on 6 January 2010 the Celje District Court declared that Mrs Slapnik was Mr Trnovšek's sole heir. In various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close members of his family who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008, and Mlakar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 30946/02, 12   December 2006). Regard being had to the fact that Mrs Slapnik has been confirmed under national law as the sole heir after the late applicant in a direct hereditary line (see above), the Court considers that she has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application. The Court must accordingly continue to examine the application at her request. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Government had been informed of the application on 22 February 2007 (Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court) and that the applicant received the State Attorney's Office's settlement proposal of 23 May 2007 under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage. After having learned that the applicant had died on 19 March 2006, the Government withdrew the domestic settlement proposal, on the ground that under domestic law non-pecuniary claims could not be inherited if the decision awarding the non-pecuniary damages had not yet become final like in the present case (see above). On 24 February 2009, the case was re-communicated to the respondent Government (Article 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of Court). On 25 January 2010 the Court made a friendly settlement proposal to both parties which was accepted. The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention in the relevant part reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (b)     the matter has been resolved; or (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” On 24 February and 26 March 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant's heir agreed to waive any further claims against Slovenia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her 2,660.72 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and finds that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b)). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Stanley Naismith   Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar   President