CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 juin 2006

.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 } .sE7A0A3F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.25pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s62DA4C4C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:52pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8925DB61 { width:2.53pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s394C7864 { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffff00 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9CC4DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s60FFF64E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:39.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .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 } .sE950BED4 { width:22.54pt; display:inline-block } .sB9E01604 { width:205.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 44580/98 by Ljubo SIRC against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   June   2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Hedigan , President ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mr   E. Myjer ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson , judges ,   Mr   R. Pirnat, ad hoc judge , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 August 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the Court’s partial decision of 16   May   2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 13 August 2002 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Ljubo Sirc, is a Slovenian and British national, born in 1920 and living in Glasgow (United Kingdom). He was represented before the Court from 12 August 2000 until 17 July 2002 by the firm Christian Fisher, Solicitors, and Mr   Gordon Nardell, a barrister practising in London. 2.     The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   L.   Bembič, State Attorney-General. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Background to the case 4.     Before the Second World War, the applicant’s family owned large amounts of various types of real estate located in Kranj and Ljubljana and in the surrounding area. The applicant’s father was the owner, inter alia , of a textile factory in Kranj. In 1941, its premises were taken over and the moveable assets of the business as well as stock were appropriated by the German occupying forces. In addition, the factory buildings were burnt down by the occupying forces at the end of the Second World War in 1945. 5.     Following the end of the Second World War, the 1945 Yugoslav Act on the Treatment of Property which Owners were Obliged to Abandon during the Occupation or of Property appropriated by the Occupying Forces or their Collaborators provided for immediate restitution of confiscated property to the owners (“the 1945 Act”, see “Relevant domestic law and practice”). The applicant’s father submitted requests for restitution to the courts. 6.     Subsequently, the factory land was returned to the applicant’s father together with a small proportion of the movable assets (including part of the machinery and stock). 7.     On 12 August 1947 the Supreme Court convicted the applicant, the applicant’s father and several others of offences of collaboration with Western powers in the so-called “Nagode” trial. The proceedings have long since been recognised to have been a show trial. 8.     The applicant was sentenced to death (later commuted to 20 years’ imprisonment) and his father to 10 years’ imprisonment. Both were sentenced to forfeiture of property to the State. However, at the time of the trial, the Sirc property consisted mostly of restitution or compensation claims. 9.     According to the applicant, the sentence was enforced in two different ways. On the one hand, some assets were officially listed as appropriated by the State. These included approximately 15,000 m 2 of factory land, returned machinery and items corresponding to more than two-thirds of the claims for the return of the remaining machinery filed under the 1945 Act, the Sirc family house with a small garden, a house in Ljubljana, shares in the Trbovlje coal-mining company, personal possessions and some 9,000 m 2 of agricultural land belonging to the applicant’s mother. 10.     On the other hand, the remaining assets such as items corresponding to outstanding claims introduced under the 1945 Act for restitution of, or compensation for, finished textiles, the Russian and Turkish cotton and one-third of the unreturned machinery became State property under the “general formula” of the forfeiture order. 11.     The applicant’s father and the applicant were imprisoned from 1947 to 1950 and 1954, respectively. Before releasing the applicant from the prison, the communist police tried in vain to force him to become their agent. 12.     Soon after his release in 1950, the applicant’s father died, leaving his entire estate to the applicant. Soon after his own subsequent release, the applicant fled to the United Kingdom and became a university lecturer in Glasgow, but continued to be harassed by the communists all through his 34 years of exile. 13.     As to the compensation for the assets alienated from the factory by the German occupying forces, the Sirc family and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded on 17 March 1964 a settlement in Berlin for German marks (DEM) 1,000,000. 14.     In 1989, the applicant was able to return to Slovenia. 2.     Request for restitution and compensation under the 1978 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions and the adoption of the 1991 Denationalisation Act 15.     On 31 January 1991 the Supreme Court ordered retrials of those convicted in 1947, including the applicant. On 5 April 1991, following the withdrawal of charges by the Public Prosecutor, the Ljubljana first-instance court terminated the proceedings and quashed the convictions. 16.     On 3 June 1991, on the basis of Section 539 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (“the CPA”) as in force at the time, the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice to give effect to his right to restitution of forfeited property and compensation for seven and a half years’ imprisonment. 17.     At the material time, Section 145 of the 1978 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions as then applicable (“the 1978 Act”) regulated the restitution of, and compensation for, the property forfeited through penal proceedings (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”). 18.     According to the applicant, that provision was interpreted by the domestic courts as putting the right to restitution of property forfeited in criminal proceedings on the same footing as a civil claim in tort. In particular, compensation awarded under Section 145 included damages for the owner’s inability to use the property during the period of forfeiture, and each asset was valued individually with due allowance for the effect of inflation, on the basis of expert evidence. 19.     On 25 June 1991 Slovenia gained independence. 20.     On 29 November 1991 the Denationalisation Act (“the DA”) was adopted, forming the basis for restitution of property (or its value) that had passed into State ownership after the Second World War. Its Section 92 provided that property forfeited in criminal proceedings that had terminated before 31   December 1958 should also be returned to previous owners under the DA (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”). One individual filed a constitutional initiative ( ustavna pobuda ) with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 92. 21.     On 27   May 1992, the Ministry having failed to respond to the applicant’s request, he instituted proceedings concerning some of the forfeited property in the Kranj Basic Court ( Temeljno sodišče) . 22.     On 29 June 1992 the Kranj Basic Court rejected his claims, holding that the administrative authorities in charge of the denationalisation proceedings enjoyed jurisdiction. The applicant appealed against the decision. 23.     On 19 July 1992 the applicant reiterated his earlier request lodged with the Ministry. On 20 October 1992 he filed additional submissions. 24.     On 5   November 1992, the Constitutional Court rescinded Section 92 of the DA. That ruling was subsequently published in the Official Journal. 25.     On 11 November 1992 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Kranj Basic Court. 26.     On 3 June 1993 the applicant filed additional submissions with the Ministry. 27.     On 23 November 1993 the applicant reached an agreement with the Ministry of Justice as to the full settlement of compensation claims arising out of his unjust deprivation of liberty. DEM 80,000 were awarded to him on that basis. 3. New requests for restitution and compensation under the 1978 Act 28.     Further to the fact that the agreement did not cover the applicant’s claims for restitution of, or compensation for, forfeited property, he initiated several sets of proceedings. They were divided into contentious ( pravdni postopek ) and non-contentious proceedings ( nepravdni postopek ). Currently, there are four sets of contentious proceedings and three sets of non-contentious proceedings pending before different levels of jurisdiction.     (a)   The main set of contentious proceedings 29.     On 1 April 1994 the applicant commenced proceedings in the Ljubljana Basic Court in respect of the contentious assets (i.e. those items not formally listed as forfeited by the State in 1947 – see “Background to the case”), claiming compensation amounting to 3,913,894.40 US dollars. He argued that he would have been able to secure compensation for these assets under the 1945 Act. In the framework of these proceedings, proof had to be adduced of the existence of each claim for these assets and the applicant’s ownership of the latter. 30.     The (renamed) Ljubljana District Court ( Okrožno sodišče ) held a hearing on 19 January 1996. 31.     On 21   November   1996, the Ljubljana District Court granted that part of the applicant’s claim relating to the Russian and Turkish cotton and some items of unreturned machinery. The Court awarded the applicant a total of 123,972,714.80 Slovenian tolars (“SLT”) (approximately USD 1 million at the 1996 exchange rate). 32.     Both the applicant and the State Attorney-General acting on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court. 33.     On 9 August 1997 the Parliament passed the Act on the Temporary Suspension of certain Provisions of the Act on Denationalisation and of the Act on the Implementation of Penal Sanctions (“the Temporary Suspension Act”). It had the effect of suspending extant claims under the 1978 Act, originally until 20 December 1997 and subsequently, under new legislation, until 31 March 1998. 34.     While those provisions were in abeyance, the Parliament passed the 1998 Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Act on Implementation of Legal Sanctions (the “1998 Act“). That Act added new Sections to the 1978 Act. 35.     Section 145A applied the provisions of the DA regarding the form and scope of restitution as well as the restrictions on restitution and the valuation of property to claims for restitution of property forfeited in criminal proceedings terminated before 31   December   1958 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”) . 36.     The applicant and others filed constitutional initiatives challenging the 1998 Act before the Constitutional Court on the ground that its provisions were retroactive and discriminatory. On 16 July 1998 the Constitutional Court dismissed these initiatives (decision no. U-I-60/98 - see “Relevant domestic law and practice”). 37.     The applicant also challenged the method of valuation of property as set out in the DA. On 18 March 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed this initiative as well (decision no. U-I-137/98). 38.     The proceedings continued in the Ljubljana Higher Court after expiry of the period of temporary suspension of the relevant provisions. 39.     On 16 April 1999, the Ljubljana Higher Court quashed the Ljubljana District Court’s judgment of 21 November 1996 on the ground that the law had changed in the meantime and remitted the case. 40.     In his written submissions of 18 January 2001, the applicant specified his claims in greater detail. He further explained that he was claiming compensation for the forfeited property that had not been properly listed. 41.     On 29 January 2001 a hearing was held. 42.     On 8 March 2001 the Ljubljana District Court gave judgment dismissing the whole of the applicant’s claims. On 11 September 2001 he appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court. He filed additional submissions on 24 May 2002. 43.     On 17 July 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant than filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. 44.     On 23 October 2003 the Supreme Court partially granted his appeal, relying on the provisions of Section 145 of the 1978 Act and referred that part of the case relating to the value of the machinery back to the first-instance court for re-examination. The Supreme Court first noted that the right under Section 145 was not a right to compensation but a right pertaining to unjust enrichment ( neupravičena obogatitev ). In addition, the provisions of the Civil Code were not applicable. 45.     The Supreme Court considered that the aim of the provisions of the 1978 Act was to restore the situation to what it would have been had no transfer of property taken place. It was therefore necessary to determine whether or not the claims in question fell under the expropriation. The foundation of the applicant’s case brought under the 1978 Act was therefore conditional on the existence of claims under the 1945 Act and a genuine prospect of their being settled at the time of expropriation. The Supreme Court ruled that that was not the case concerning the remainder of the applicant’s request. 46.     On 10 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal relying on Articles 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 30 and 33 of the Constitution as well as on Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No 1. In particular, he contested the application solely of Section 145 of the 1978 Act and not also of the Criminal and Civil Codes. Moreover, the Supreme Court allegedly failed to follow the Constitutional Court’s decision rendered on 16 July 1998. He contended that his claims were viable and constituted classical tort claims, and that all elements of the State’s liability under the Civil Code were present. 47.     On 14 February 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional appeal concerning the dismissal of his claim admissible and rejected the remainder. 48.     On 12 May 2005, reiterating the Supreme Court’s finding concerning this twofold condition for the foundation of the applicant’s claims under Section 145 of the 1978 Act and considering further that even another legal qualification of his rights per se would not secure the decision that he was seeking, the Constitutional Court dismissed his appeal. It also pointed out that, after the Second World War, the State acquired not only the actual property but also other claims pertaining to such property. 49.     Since the applicant was contesting the interpretation of law, i.e. the finding of the lower courts concerning the viability of his claims, his allegations were of a fourth-instance nature. In addition, the previous decisions of the Constitutional Court did not assert that the applicant would have a right to compensation under the Civil Code for claims of which he had not been bereft. The Constitutional Court finally considered that the Supreme Court’s decision in general did not show arbitrariness. 50.     In the framework of the remitted proceedings, on 24 May 2004 the Ljubljana District Court dismissed the part of the applicant’s request related to compensation for machinery amounting to 738,807.64 US dollars. The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 August 2004. He filed an appeal. 51.     On 8 December 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court quashed the judgment and remanded the case to the first-instance court. 52.     On 14 March 2005, after a hearing, the Ljubljana District Court again rejected the applicant’s request. The applicant filed an appeal. 53.     The proceedings are pending. (b) The non-contentious proceedings and the contentious proceedings arising out of them 54.     On 28 April 1993, in the framework of the non-contentious proceedings, four distinct claims concerning the forfeited property duly listed in 1947 (factory land, family house, spinning mill, three lots of machinery and various personal assets) were lodged with the Kranj, Kamnik and Ljubljana Basic Courts. 55.     In the framework of these different sets of proceedings, the applicant and the State Attorney-General provided the court with extensive expert evidence as to the value of the assets. 56.     In one set of the proceedings, on 9 September 1993, the applicant applied to the President of the Kranj Basic Court for an interim measure ( začasna odredba ) concerning the land. On 24 September 1993, the applicant’s request was granted pending the outcome of the proceedings. 57.     The proceedings originally filed with the Kranj and Kamnik Basic Courts were subsequently transferred to the Ljubljana Basic Court. (i) The non-contentious proceedings no. Nz 835/93 58.     The applicant claimed restitution of land and buildings in natura and compensation for forfeited movable assets, i.e. textile machinery confiscated in factories in Kranj, Tržič and Škofja Loka and other property items, amounting to 1.322.284,92 US dollars. 59.     At some stage, another set of proceedings was merged with the present one. 60.     A hearing was held on 5 May 1994. 61.     On 8 July 1994 the Ljubljana Basic Court partly granted the applicant’s request with regard to the restitution of land. The applicant challenged that ruling. 62.     On 10 November 1994 another set of non-contentious proceedings was merged with the present proceedings. 63.     On 30 December 1994 the Ljubljana Basic Court first quashed its earlier decision and subsequently returned to the applicant part of the immovable assets situated in Kranj. 64.     On the same day, the court also decided that the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for his inability to make use of the assets were to be treated in contentious proceedings. That part of the applicant’s claim was separated and transferred to the Ljubljana District Court. 65.     On 24 February 1995 the (renamed) Ljubljana Local Court ordered that the transfer of ownership concerning the returned land be entered in the land register of Kranj. 66.     On 13 April 1995 another hearing was held by the Ljubljana Local Court. 67.     On 7 July 1995 the applicant’s request related to the restitution of immovable assets situated in Kranj and in Stražišče was partially granted. 68.     On 19 November 1996 the applicant applied for a new interim measure for the protection of the land, which was granted on 20 November 1996. The respondent parties challenged that decision. 69.     On 22 January and 25 February 1997 the Ljubljana Local Court ordered the applicant to make payment of a provision to the valuation expert. The State Attorney-General and one of the other respondent parties appealed. 70.     On 15 and 25 February 1997 the challenges made by the respondent parties were dismissed. They appealed. 71.     On 25 February 1997 the Ljubljana Local Court also returned further land and a part of the family house to the applicant. 72.     On 19 May 1998, at a hearing, the applicant withdrew one part of his claims concerning the restitution of the machinery. The court terminated that part of the proceedings and rejected his claim for compensation for one part of the machinery, in so far as it was directed against the Community of Kamnik and not the Republic of Slovenia. 73.     On 21 April 1999 the Ljubljana Higher Court partly dismissed appeals against the first-instance rulings of 22 January, 15 and 25   February   1997, remitting the case to the Ljubljana Local Court in relation to the interim measures. 74.     On 24 and 27 September 1999, acting on the basis of Section 24 of the amended DA, the applicant applied to the Ljubljana District Court for compensation for dilapidation of the property returned in 1994 and 1997. 75.     On 19 September 2000 a hearing was held. The applicant insisted on restitutio in natura of the forfeited assets, whereas the persons holding them argued that this was not possible. 76.     At a hearing of 24 October 2000, an expert valuer was appointed further to the adoption of the new legislation. 77.     On 21 June 2001 another expert was appointed. 78.     On 18 September 2003 the applicant filed his submissions, repeating his arguments that the proceedings concerning movables should be combined and separated from the proceedings regarding the land and buildings. 79.     On 21 October 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court requested the Kranj District Court to consult the files relating to the confiscation of the Sirc property in 1947. On 14 November 2005 the Kranj Local Court replied that the files were stored in the Kranj History Archives ( Zgodovinski arhiv Kranj ). 80.     On 2 December 2005 the Kranj History Archives forwarded some of the files to the Ljubljana Local Court. The remainder were not found. 81.     A hearing was scheduled for 10 May 2006. 82.     The proceedings are pending. (ii) The non-contentious proceedings no. Nz 157/94 83.     The applicant claimed compensation for forfeited immovable assets (looms in Kranj) amounting to 100,060 US dollars. 84.     On 8 December 1993 and 5 July 1994 the applicant filed submissions. 85.     On 30 December 1994 the Ljubljana Basic Court decided that the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for his inability to make use of the forfeited assets were to be treated in contentious proceedings. That part of the applicant’s claim was transferred to the Ljubljana District Court. 86.     On 19 May 1998 the applicant withdrew part of his claim. 87.     On 17 September 2001 the present set of non-contentious proceedings was merged with the following set of non-contentious proceedings. (iii) The non-contentious proceedings no. Nz 280/93 88.     The applicant claimed compensation for forfeited movable assets (parts of a spinning mill) amounting to 691,870 US dollars. 89.     On 30 December 1994 the Ljubljana Basic Court decided that the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for his inability to make use of the machinery were to be treated in contentious proceedings. 90.     On 30 November 1996 an expert opinion as to the valuation of the assets was drawn up. 91.     On 18 February 1997 the State Attorney filed submissions. 92.     On 25 February 1997 a hearing was held. 93.     On 17 September 2001 the previous set of non-contentious proceedings was merged with the present set of proceedings. 94.     A hearing was set for 18 September 2001. 95.     On 8   October 2001 another hearing was held at which the applicant submitted a list containing all items of movable property for which he claimed compensation. 96.     On 22 October 2001 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint an expert. 97.     On 3 March 2003, the President of the court informed the applicant that his case would be transferred to another judge, specialized in denationalisation matters. 98.     On 18 September 2003 the applicant filed his submissions, repeating his arguments that the proceedings concerning movables should be combined and separated from the proceedings regarding the land and buildings. 99.     On 26 September 2003 the Bank of Slovenia was appointed as a financial expert in order to calculate within 30 days the monetary debts and claims of the applicant’s family firm in 1947. 100.     On 20 January 2004 the court forwarded to the applicant the submissions filed by the State Attorney-General on 20 November 2002 and a letter of the Administrative Unit of Kranj filed in 2001. 101.     On 18 August 2004 the Bank of Slovenia submitted its calculations. 102.     On 27 August 2004 the State Attorney-General filed submissions as did the applicant on 8 October 2004. 103.     On 23 March 2005 a new judge appointed in the case informed the applicant that she was to deal with his case and that she also had a number of old and complicated cases to examine. 104.     The proceedings are still pending. (iv) The current situation concerning the restitution of assets in the non-contentious proceedings 105.     The situation in relation to the partially returned assets in the non-contentious proceedings is currently as follows: -     The factory land, some 600 m 2 has been returned. The remaining 14,000 m 2 (approx.) have yet to be returned, together with a small building. Some other structures on the land had been demolished, which has given rise to a claim for compensation. -     The upper storeys of the Sirc family house have been returned and are the subject of a claim in respect of dilapidation. However, the business premises on the ground floor have not been returned. According to the applicant, in spite of his request for an interim measure, the company Ž was entered into the land registry as the owner during its privatisation proceedings and the applicant is obliged to purchase the premises from the company Ž before any compensation is awarded to him. -     Two plots of the garden have been returned and are the subject of dilapidations claims. However, the most valuable flat part has not been returned.   (v) The non-contentious proceedings no. Nz 11/93 and the proceedings before the administrative authorities in Ljubljana 106.     On 17 November 1993 the applicant applied to the Community of Ljubljana for compensation in relation to 185 confiscated shares in the Trbovlje coal-mining company. 107.     In domestic law there was a conflict of jurisdiction between the courts and administrative authorities concerning the shares. 108.     On 4 May 1993 the claim was submitted also to the Ljubljana Basic Court which held a hearing on 5 May 1994. The same proceedings deal with the applicant’s claim in relation to the house which was the subject of a contract of sale in 1946 that was subsequently annulled as part of the process of forfeiture of assets. 109.     On 24 June 1994 and 17 February 1997 the applicant filed submissions. 110.     On 27 March and 8 May 2001 hearings were held by the (renamed) Ljubljana Local Court. At the first hearing, the applicant asserted that he was willing to withdraw the claim related to the house if I.K. and C.E., who had purchased it in 1946, succeeded in the proceedings they had initiated before the (renamed) Ljubljana Administrative Unit. 111.     On 23 May 2001 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit also held a hearing. On 4   June   2001 the applicant filed further submissions. 112.     On 12 June 2001 a hearing was held before the Ljubljana Local Court. Since the court found out that the proceedings concerning the same claims had been pending before the competent Administrative Unit, it postponed the hearing for an indefinite time. 113.     On 17 January 2002 the applicant withdrew his request for compensation relating to the confiscated shares of the Trbovlje coal-mining company from the Ljubljana Local Court. 114.     On an unknown date in 2002, the Ljubljana Administrative Unit awarded the applicant compensation for 185 shares. 115.     On 8 July 2002 the court made enquiries concerning the state of the proceedings initiated by the buyers of the house with the competent Administrative Unit. 116.     On 27 March and 28 May 2003 hearings were held. 117.     On 16 April 2003 the State Attorney-General filed preparatory submissions. 118.     At the hearing held on 28 May 2003, the applicant’s lawyer suggested that the proceedings be suspended pending the decision of the Ljubljana Administrative Unit. 119.     In the course of the administrative proceedings initiated by the buyers of the house, on 23 December 2003 the Slovenian Compensation Society filed submissions which were forwarded to the claimants the following day. On 17 February 2004, a hearing was held by the Administrative Unit in those proceedings, at which it was decided to appoint a court evaluator. 120.     The proceedings are pending. (vi) The contentious proceedings rising out of the non-contentious proceedings no. II P 1015/95 121.     On 30 December 1994 the Ljubljana Basic Court decided that the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for his inability to make use of the assets be transferred to the renamed Ljubljana District Court. 122.     On 7 November 1996 the applicant amended his claims. On 24 January 2002 the Ljubljana District Court asked the applicant whether or not the non-contentious proceedings were still pending. 123.     On 3 December 2002 the Ljubljana District Court asked the applicant whether or not one set of the non-contentious proceedings had been terminated, with a view to fixing a date for a hearing. On 24 December 2002 the applicant informed the court that the proceedings were still pending. 124.     A hearing was set for 20 December 2004. The applicant proposed that the hearing be postponed until the termination of the original set of non-contentious proceedings and that the three sets of contentious proceedings arising out of non-contentious proceedings be joined. 125.     On 17 December 2004 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the non-contentious proceedings. (vii) The contentious proceedings rising out of the non-contentious proceedings no. II P 1016/95 126.     In the beginning of 1995, the proceedings related to the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for his inability to make use of the assets started before the Ljubljana District Court. 127.     A hearing was first set for 17 May 1996 and subsequently cancelled. 128.     On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed submissions and on 7   November 1996 he amended his claim. 129.     A hearing was set for 13 February 2001. Further to the applicant’s proposal, the court postponed the hearing until the final decision in the corresponding set of non-contentious proceedings. 130.     The proceedings are pending. (viii) The contentious proceedings rising out of the non-contentious proceedings no. II P 1017/95 131.     In the beginning of 1995, the proceedings related to the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for his inability to make use of the assets started before the Ljubljana District Court. 132.     On 25 October 1996 the applicant amended his claim. 133.     On 17 March 1997 the Ljubljana District Court suspended further consideration of the applicant’s claims pending the ruling of the Ljubljana Local Court in the non-contentious proceedings. 134.     On 3 December 2002 the Ljubljana District Court asked the applicant whether or not the non-contentious proceedings had been terminated so that a hearing could be scheduled. On 24 December 2002 the applicant informed the court that the proceedings were still pending. 135.     The proceedings remain pending. (c) Request for supervision related to the contentious and non-contentious proceedings 136.     On 8 March 1996, further to the applicant’s request for supervision lodged with the Ministry of Justice, the latter informed him that the set of non-contentious proceedings relating to a considerable number of assets should be terminated within a reasonable time. 137.     On 7 February 2000 the applicant raised the matter of the excessive length of proceedings with the Slovenian Embassy in Brussels through a Member of the European Parliament. The Ministry of Justice responded by making a request for supervision to the courts concerned. The replies of the Ljubljana District and Local Courts of 19 October, 7 November and 29   November 2000 were forwarded to the applicant. 138.     The Ljubljana Local Court informed the applicant that the delays in the non-contentious proceedings were due to the scale and complexity of the matters at issue. It was also stated that the applicant’s cases were being examined and some partial decisions being taken. Some measures were adopted in order to expedite the proceedings. In order to accelerate the proceedings, on 19 September 2000 a programme for dealing with the backlog of cases was adopted. 139.     In his request filed on 8 May 2001 with the Ministry, the applicant inquired about the state of the non-contentious proceedings concerning the Trbovlje coal-mine shares. 140.     On 24 May 2001 the applicant again requested information concerning the state of non-contentious proceedings pending before the Ljubljana Local Court. The Ministry requested the court to prepare a report on the progress of the cases. Upon its receipt, on 5 July 2001 the Ministry informed the applicant about recent developments in different sets of non-contentious proceedings. 141.     On 28 February 2003 the applicant filed a request for supervision with the President of the Local Court complaining about the long periods of inactivity with respect to several pending proceedings. In her reply of 1   April 2003, the President informed the applicant that the proceedings would be transferred to a new judge who was specialized in cases of this sort. 142.     In August 2005 the applicant filed another request for supervision with the Ministry of Justice. The latter requested the Local Court of Ljubljana for information about the state of the proceedings, pointing to the increase in the number of length-of-proceedings applications against Slovenia pending before the European Court of Human Rights and drawing attention to the need to secure the right to proceedings of a reasonable length within the Slovenian judicial system. 4. The proceedings initiated on the basis of the Denationalisation Act in Ljubljana and Kranj 143.     The applicant introduced two sets of proceedings before the Communities of Kranj and Ljubljana in order to claim compensation in respect of the requisitioned building land and a house formerly belonging to his mother as well as some of her personal possessions under the DA. (a) The proceedings in Ljubljana 144.     The proceedings before the Community of Ljubljana started on 6   February 1993. 145.     On 18 November 1999 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit requested the applicant to complete his submissions. On 11 February 2000 the applicant submitted additional documents. 146.     At an unknown date, the applicant submitted claims for loss of earnings during the period of forfeiture. These claims are being examined by the Ljubljana District Court. 147.     On 23 May 2000 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit forwarded the request for compensation to the Slovenian Compensation Fund . 148.     On 10 February 2003 the (renamed) Slovenian Compensation Society replied to the applicant. On 23 March 2004 the applicant, in turn, replied. 149.     On 3 March 2005 the Slovenian Compensation Society requested additional documents which were supplied on 23 March 2005 in so far as available. 150.     On 12 July 2005 the Slovenian Compensation Society questioned the nature of the applicant’s claim. That request was forwarded to the applicant on 18 August 2005 who replied on 5 September 2005. 151.     On 29 September 2005 a hearing was held. On 12 October 2005 the applicant submitted an explanatory note. 152.     On 12 January 2006 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit forwarded the documents to the Slovenian Compensation Society. On 6   February   2006 the latter replied that no new information was contained in the explanatory note. On 7   March   2006 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit forwarded this information to the applicant. 153.     The proceedings are pending. (b) The proceedings in Kranj 154.     The proceedings before the Community of Kranj started on 4   May   1993. 155.     A hearing was held on 27   May   1994. 156.     The claim for restitution of the house resulted in a partial decision of 10   April 1998 returning the ground floor and a plot of land. The decision became final on 4 May 1998. 157.     On 24 September 1999 the applicant submitted a claim for dilapidations of the returned property to the (renamed) Kranj Administrative Unit, on the basis of Section 24 of the amended DA. 158.     On 8 August 2002 the Kranj Administrative Unit transferred part of the applicant’s claim to the Kranj District Court. 159.     On 18 October 2002 the Kranj Administrative Unit issued a decision, fixing the amount of compensation at 53,641 €, payable in bonds of the (renamed) Slovenian Compensation Society, for a plot of land 160.     On 31 January 2003 the Kranj District Court held a hearing. A new hearing was scheduled for 11 July 2003. 161.     On 23 April 2003 the Kranj Administrative Unit, acting ex officio, re-opened the proceedings and amended its previous decision by awarding the applicant a higher compensation amounting to 157,936.84 DEM, payable in bonds. The applicant and the respondent, the Slovenian Compensation Society filed objections. The applicant replied on 4   June   2003. 162.     On 8 September 2003 the applicant requested the annulment of the decision given on 18 October 2002 and a priority treatment of his appeal. 163.     On 18 September 2003 the Ministry for Environment , Space and Energy rejected his request concerning the decision of 18 October 2002. By a separate decision, it also quashed the decision of 23 April 2003. 164.     On 29 October 2003 the applicant instituted two administrative disputes before the Administrative Court and on 30 October 2003 he filed submissions with the Administrative Unit. 165.     On 20 March 2004 the Administrative Unit Kranj issued a supplementary decision, fixing the amount of compensation at 49.047,67   DEM. 166.     On 19 May 2004 the Kranj District Court issued an intermediary decision, considering that the applicant had a right to compensation since the alleged contracts had actually been acts of requisition. 167.     On 14 September 2004, by separate judgments, the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s requests. He lodged appeals with the Supreme Court. The proceedings are pending. 168.     On 22 September 2004, after a hearing, the Kranj District Court fixed the amount of compensation. The applicant appealed. 169.     On 26 January the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal. On 21 March 2005 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court which rejected it on 15 September 2005. The applicant than filed a constitutional appeal. 170.     The proceedings are pending. 5. Other applications to the Constitutional Court 171.     On 17 March 1997 the applicant challenged before the Constitutional Court the method of valuation of property based on the fixed exchange rate with the US dollars, as prescribed by the DA. The Constitutional Court dismissed that challenge on 2 March 2000. 172.     The applicant also made an application to the Constitutional Court for a binding interpretation of the provisions of the 1945 and 1978 Acts, but this too was refused on 2 March 2000. 6. The request for war damages 173.     On 27 June 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Office of the State Attorney-General for a part of the compensation that Austria had awarded to Slovenia as one of the legal successors of the SFRY on the basis of the Austrian State Agreement of 1959 for the damage caused by the German Army during its retreat in 1945 when it had burned the building of the Sirc textile factory. On 18   December   2000 the Office of the State Attorney-General replied that the matter was not within its jurisdiction. 174.     The applicant has also submitted his request for compensation to the Individual Claims Committee of the Austrian Bank Holocaust Litigation Settlement and was awarded on 19 July 2004 approximately 5,000 US dollars. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1. The 1945 Act on the Treatment of Property which Owners were Obliged to Abandon during the Occupation or of Property appropriated by the Occupying Forces or their Collaborators 175.     Section 1 of the 1945 Yugoslav Act on the Treatment of Property which Owners were obliged to abandon during the Occupation or of Property appropriated by the Occupying Forces or their Collaborators ( Zakon o ravnanju z imovino, katero so lastniki morali zapustiti med okupacijo, ter z imovino, katero so jim odvzeli okupator ali njegovi pomagači , Official Journal of the Democratic Federative Yugoslavia, no.   36/45, and of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, no.   105/46) provided for immediate restitution of confiscated property (immovable and movable assets, rights, enterprises with machinery and stock, etc.) to its owners. It also entitled the owners to claim compensation for damage to the property and for income or profit realised from the property by third parties. Pursuant to Section 2 (amended to become Section   5) compensation for such income and profit was to be quantified in accordance with the civil law. 2. The 1994 Act on Criminal Procedure 176.     Sections 538 to 546 of the Act on Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kazenskem postopku , Official Journal no. 63/1994 and its amendments) provide for procedure for compensation, rehabilitation and making good of other rights of wrongly convicted or detained. Section 538 § 1 “When extraordinary judicial review proceedings against a person, finally convicted or found guilty (...), then acquitted by such proceedings have been definitively discontinued or when such person has been finally acquitted of the charge brought against him or when the latter charge or the act of indictment has been dismissed, such person shall enjoy the right to compensation for the damage sustained by him as a result of his wrongful conviction ...” Section 539 § 2 (as in force at the material time) “Before filing the claim for compensation with the court the injured person shall address his claim to the Ministry of Justice in an attempt to come to an agreement as to the existence of the loss sustained and the nature and extent of the compensation sought.” 177.     Further to the amendments, the claimant should now file his request with the State Attorney-General. 3. The 1978 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions, as amended and the 2000 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions 178.     The 1978 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions, as amended ( Zakon o izvrševanju kazenskih sankcij, Official Journal nos. 17/78, 8/90) originally excluded from restitution all those sentenced before 31   December   1958. Section 145, as amended in 1990 “If the sanction of forfeiture of property is quashed, the forfeited property shall be restored to the person sentenced or his heirs. If the restitution of property in whole or in part is physically or legally impossible, the actual value of that property at the time of the decision on its restitution, and according to the state of the property at the time of forfeiture, shall be paid by the socio-political unit to which the property was allocated. (...)” 179.     The 2000 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions (Official Journal no.   22/2000) replaced the 1978 Act. 4. The 1991 Denationalisation Act 180.     The Denationalisation Act ( Zakon o denacionalizaciji, Official Journal no. 27/91) formed the basis for restitution of property (or its value) that had passed into State ownership through previous legislation (agrarian reform, nationalisation, confiscation, etc.). 181.     Section 3 provides that all natural persons whose property had passed into State ownership on the basis of the listed legislation adopted in the aftermath of the Second World War are entitled to denationalisation. Section 4 further specifies that all other natural persons whose property was nationalised before ­ 1963 are entitled to denationalisation. 182.     Sections 2 and 42 to 44 provide that, where property cannot be returned in its original form, compensation is payable (not in cash but in State bonds payable in instalments over 15 years). 183.     Section 44 provides that compensation for land and buildings is to be valued on a fixed system in accordance with the relevant regulatory texts and that the effect of inflation on business assets is to be calculated on the basis of a fixed US$ exchange rate determined by the Minister of Finance. Section 85 empowers various other Ministries to prescribe rules for valuation. 184.     Section 92 of the 1991 Act extended its provisions to property forfeited in criminal proceedings that had terminated by 31 December 1958. That provision was rescinded by the Constitutional Court on 5   November   1992, partly on the ground that it was retroactive and therefore violated Article 155 of the Slovenian Constitution (decision no. U-I-10/92). 5. The 1997 Act on the Temporary Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Act on Denationalisa