CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juillet 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121 July 2009 Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia - 33946/03 Judgment 21.7.2009 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Ineffectiveness of remedies in respect of length of proceedings: violation   Facts : In October 1999 the applicant brought a civil action in damages. The first interim judgment was delivered in September 2006, followed by a judgment delivered on appeal in May 2007. In June 2007 the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court on points of law and the proceedings are still pending. In early March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with a district court complaining that the proceedings had been pending for over seven years and requesting that they be expedited and a decision delivered immediately. Later that month, the president of the district court, referring to the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay Act 2006, replied that the case had been transferred to a higher court. Law : Article 35 § 1 – In its earlier case-law in respect of Slovenia, the Court had found that applicants had to exhaust the aggregate of remedies available to them under the 2006 Act as regards proceedings pending before first- and second-instance courts. That requirement applied irrespective of whether the applications with the Court were lodged before or after the entry into force of the Act. While in proceedings before the ordinary courts the remedies under the 2006 Act meant in effect an appeal to a higher instance court, this was not the case for excessively lengthy proceedings before the Supreme Court, given that length complaints concerning those proceedings were decided by the same court. In addition, no compensation could be claimed in respect of the length of proceedings before the Supreme Court. Having regard to the nature of the acceleratory remedies provided in the 2006 Act, the Court found that they did not provide effective redress in respect of the length of Supreme Court proceedings and therefore applicants could not be required to have used them. Furthermore, before the 2006 Act came into force the applicant’s case had been pending for more than seven years, mainly before the first-instance court. The only way to remedy such a situation was to provide a compensatory remedy for the damage suffered as a result of the delays. However, having noted the conflicting position of the Government on the question of when a compensatory remedy had become available to the applicant and the lack of an explicit provision addressing that issue, the Court found that the 2006 Act did not afford the applicant an effective remedy in respect of the delays that had occurred in the proceedings thus far. Articles 6 § 1 and 13 – violations (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Lukenda v. Slovenia , no. 23032/02, Information Note no. 79; Grzinčič v. Slovenia , no. 26867/02, Information Note no. 97; and Žunič v. Slovenia , no. 24342/04, Information Note no. 101).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes