CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mai 2008

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s58D529A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8BC8BA02 { margin-left:13.82pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s57165D7A { height:28.05pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1C2B10C2 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23CD0580 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s11BEB50D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sEAD70FA9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s241BF43A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s79C2263B { height:21.4pt } .s25E6E78A { height:13.2pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37559/05 by Društvo Taboriščnikov-Ukradenih Otrok & 147 Others against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   May   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 September 2005, 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Društvo Taboriščnikov-Ukradenih Otrok, which is a Slovenian non-governmental association working for the interests of the “stolen children” (“the applicant association”), and 147 others (see appendix for details), were represented before the Court by Mr R. Završek, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. Six of the applicants died in the course of the proceedings (see attached table). On 17   March   2008 close family members who appear also to be heirs of five of the deceased applicants informed the Court that they wished to pursue their complaints before the Court. They continued to be represented by Mr R. Završek. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1942, during World War II, the German Nazis kidnapped 600 Slovenian children (known as “the Stolen Children”) and separated them from their parents and other family members, most of whom were later killed or taken to concentration camps. Members of the applicant association and the 147 individual applicants were among those children. Allegedly, those responsible for the crimes described above were not held to account in the Nuremberg trials, nor have the victims received any compensation for the damage suffered. As a result, the surviving victims instituted the following proceedings before the Slovenian authorities. 1.     The criminal complaint lodged by the applicants On 24 September 1994, an uncertain number of the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Celje District Public Prosecutor against unknown offenders for, inter alia , the criminal offence of genocide and war crimes against the civilian population. In the criminal complaint, they also stated their compensation claim against Slovenia, which was essentially the same as the one pursued in the civil proceedings (see below). On 8 September 2005 those applicants inquired about the state of the proceedings. Allegedly, they received no reply from the public prosecutor. 2.     The civil proceedings On 24 June 1994, 175 alleged victims of the acts described above, including at least 132 applicants, all represented by one lawyer, instituted civil proceedings against Slovenia in the Celje District Court ( Okrožno sodišče v Celju ) seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had suffered as a consequence. They argued that Slovenia had been entitled to obtain reparation from Germany and should therefore be liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs. On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force. Between 11 July 1994 and 23 October 1997 the plaintiffs lodged six preliminary written submissions. By July 1997 the number of plaintiffs had increased to 213. Following the court’s request, the plaintiffs submitted missing authority forms on 12 March 1997. Between 23 August 1996 and 21 April 1997 the applicants lodged three requests for a hearing. On 15 July 1997 and 23 October 1997 the court held hearings. On the latter date it issued an interim judgment finding that the State was liable for damages in this case. Subsequently, the State appealed to the Celje Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Celju ). On 3 December 1998 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. After the remittal of the case, the plaintiffs made, between 6 April 2000 and 11 May 2005, twelve requests that a date be set for a hearing. On 20 August 2001 the case was granted priority. Between 27 September 2001 and 21 December 2005 the court held four hearings. During the proceedings the court appointed an expert psychiatrist. On 14   December 2004 it also appointed the Ljubljana Faculty of Law to prepare an expert opinion, which it refused on 14 April 2005. Among other witnesses, the court also heard the then Slovenian Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 21 February 2006, further to the submission of missing authority forms by certain plaintiffs, the court delivered a written judgment rejecting the claim. The judgment was served on the applicants on 21   April   2006. On 8 May 2006 the plaintiffs appealed to the Celje Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Celju ). On 14 December 2006 the court dismissed the appeal. On that date the case was “finally resolved” ( pravnomočno rešen ). On 5 February 2007 the plaintiffs lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ). On 30 April 2007 the Celje District Court dismissed the appeal on points of law in respect of those plaintiffs who had not submitted powers of attorney, including 23 of the applicants. On 12 November 2007 the plaintiffs lodged a supervisory appeal with the president of the Supreme Court complaining about the delays in the proceedings. On 10 January 2008 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The judgment was served on the applicants on 30 January 2008. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair trial had been infringed by the excessive length of the civil proceedings and the length of the proceedings instituted upon a criminal complaint. They furthermore complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW A.     Victim status of the applicant association Referring to decisions issued in the domestic proceedings, the Government alleged that the applicant association was not party to the domestic proceedings and that it was therefore not entitled to lodge an application under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations relating to the length of these proceedings. The applicants did not address this objection by the Government. The Court notes that the applicant association did not claim to represent its members in the way that, for instance, a lawyer represents his client, but claimed that it was itself a victim of a breach of rights protected by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. In this connection the Court notes that the applicant association was not a party to the domestic proceedings and thus could not have been directly affected as such by their alleged unreasonable length. Consequently, the Court considers that it may not claim to be a victim of the alleged violations. This part of the application is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35   §§   3 and 4 (see, for example, Norris, National Gay Federation v.   Ireland , no. 10581/83, Commission decision of 16 May 1985, Decisions and Reports 44, p. 132 , and see also, by contrast, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain , no.   62543/00, §   36, ECHR 2004 ‑ III). B.   Whether it is justified to continue the examination of the application as regards the deceased applicants The Court must also address the issue of entitlement to pursue the part of the application originally introduced by the applicants Mrs Jožefa Fužir, Mrs   Ana Kosu, Mr Franc Marolt, Mr Janez Remic, Mr Bogomil Jurančič and Mr Slavko Marolt, who died in the course of the proceedings before the Court. Except for Mrs   Ana Kosu, all the deceased applicants are survived by close family members who have requested to pursue their complaints before the Court. 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 Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Goc   v. Poland (dec.), no.   48001/99   , 23   October 2001, and Pisarkiewicz v. Poland , no. 18967/02, §   31, 22   January 2008). The Court therefore finds it justified to continue the examination of the application as regards those deceased applicants in respect of whom close family members have expressed the wish to continue the proceedings. As regards Mrs Ana Kosu no heirs or relatives have expressed any wish to continue the proceedings before the Court. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of that part of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, for example Kay v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 78147/01, 18 November 2003). Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the examination of this part of the application by virtue of that Article. Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. C.     As regards the friendly settlement reached between the Government and the individual applicants listed in the appendix, except Mrs Ana Kosu On 4 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants’ representative: “We, 147 individual applicants (see appendix) note that the Government of Slovenia are prepared to pay each of us ex gratia the sum of 3,000 euros, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage, and jointly 1,500 euros for the costs and expenses incurred with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovenia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and we have reached.” On 2 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Lucijan Bembič, Agent of the Government of Slovenia, declare that the Government of Slovenia offer to pay ex gratia 3,000 euros to each individual applicant (see appendix), which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and jointly 1,500 euros for the costs and expenses incurred with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums 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.” Further to the applicants’ letter of 4 December 2007, which has been replied to by the Government on 2 January 2008, the parties also agreed to add a clarification that the sums indicated in the declaration should be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the Government and the individual applicants listed in the appendix, except Mrs   Ana Kosu. 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). Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. D.     Article 29 § 3 of the Convention Having regard to the above considerations, the Court also concludes that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Holds that the close relatives of the applicants Mrs Jožefa Fužir, Mr   Franc Marolt, Mr Janez Remic, Mr Bogomil Jurančič and Mr   Slavko Marolt who have expressed the wish to pursue their complaints have standing to continue the present proceedings in their stead; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as far as it concerns the individual applicants; Decides to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President       Appendix – list of individual applicants       Name Date of birth 1.     Ivan Acman 24/04/1941 2.     Franc Ambrožič 29/07/1937 3.     Anton Bobnič 05/07/1940 4.     Vida Bolko 22/05/1936 5.     Marija Božič 02/12/1931 6.     Alojz Brunčič 19/06/1936 7.     Jože Brunčič 15/12/1937 8.     Rudi Brunčič 13/03/1941 9.     Ivana Črček 07/04/1936 10.     Zofija Derča 30/04/1925 11.     Danilo Doberšek 13/05/1936 12.     Drago Karol Doberšek 04/11/1938 13.     Ivan Doberšek 18/03/1933 14.     Veronika Dravinac 26/11/1928 15.     Marija Florjanc 07/09/1934 16.     Franc Fras 18/02/1941 17.     Franc Friškovec 09/05/1942 18.     Jožefa Fužir* 11/05/1926 19.     Štefka Glušič 21/12/1934 20.     Marija Grabner 08/08/1925 21.     Dušan Grešak 12/09/1935 22.     Ivanka Gril 09/06/1926 23.     Ana Groblar 29/07/1928 24.     Vladimir Guna 18/07/1941 25.     Dušan Haložan 22/05/1931 26.     Jakob Homar 01/05/1936 27.     Ladislav Hribar 15/04/1931 28.     Pavla Hudobreznik 30/06/1938 29.     Marija Ivanuša 11/03/1927 30.     Fanika Jager 18/04/1939 31.     Edvard Ježovnik 06/09/1930 32.     Martin Ježovnik 09/12/1924     Name Date of birth 33.     Jožefa Jug 09/04/1939 34.     Bogomil Jurančič* 05/06/1934 35.     Konrad Jurkošek 10/01/1929 36.     Alojzija Juvan 09/06/1928 37.     Marija Kačičnik 23/01/1939 38.     Jožica Kaše 17/03/1942 39.     Alojzija Knafelc 21/02/1931 40.     Pavlina Kokol 26/06/1932 41.     Jožefa Komerički 06/03/1931 42.     Gvido Kordon 05/09/1925 43.     Vilibald Kos 27/08/1931 44.     Ana Kosec 03/05/1935 45.     Franc Kostanjevec 14/07/1941 46.     Marija Kostanjevec 17/12/1934 47.     Ana Kosu* 30/05/1926 48.     Helena Košenina 11/04/1931 49.     Davorin Kovač 21/09/1931 50.     Avguštin Mihael Kovačič 19/08/1937 51.     Kazimir Krempuš 16/02/1939 52.     Terezija Kresnik 03/03/1935 53.     Ida Kučer 22/02/1937 54.     Marija Kuhar 04/07/1935 55.     Marija Kukovec 30/06/1939 56.     Ivana Lah 30/01/1934 57.     Jožefa Lapornik 14/03/1931 58.     Marija Lipnikar 13/08/1933 59.     Stanislav Ljubej 26/09/1931 60.     Franc Marolt* 15/01/1937 61.     Slavko Marolt* 20/10/1925 62.     Danijel Melavc 17/07/1932 63.     Marija Menart 19/05/1936 64.     Jožef Menčak 06/12/1940 65.     Jožefa Mrčun 21/04/1938 66.     Stanislava Novak 07/11/1931 67.     Franc Ocvirk 19/01/1929 68.     Leopoldina Oman 25/10/1939     Name Date of birth 69.     Ernest Orožim 10/01/1931 70.     Jože Orožim 11/01/1929 71.     Anton Oštir 29/11/1931 72.     Ivan Oštir 20/03/1929 73.     Jože Pajer 31/01/1932 74.     Frančiška Pavšek 10/09/1931 75.     Štefanija Pečečnik 26/11/1933 76.     Edi Petrič 18/03/1930 77.     Olga Pintar 20/09/1940 78.     Stanka Pipan 27/02/1938 79.     Marija Pirečnik 13/08/1929 80.     Milena Plaznik 04/04/1935 81.     Marjeta Poček 13/12/1938 82.     Matevž Podvinšek 21/09/1941 83.     Anton Potočnik 31/05/1936 84.     Cecilija Potočnik 11/11/1938 85.     Jože Potočnik 17/04/1933 86.     Terezija Povalej 27/09/1934 87.     Ana Nuša Poznik 27/01/1938 88.     Vladimir Pravdič 23/08/1940 89.     Silvija Prelec 02/11/1929 90.     Aljoz Slavkom Preložnik 19/06/1930 91.     Vinko Marjan Preložnik 12/07/1932 92.     Zdenka Cirila Privšek 08/08/1938 93.     Franc Puncer 22/09/1931 94.     Marija Pustoslemšek 21/03/1934 95.     Rudi Pušnik 06/10/1941 96.     Fortunat Razboršek 18/10/1932 97.     Franc Razboršek 02/12/1933 98.     Antonija Remic 17/01/1937 99.     Franc Remic 29/03/1935 100.     Janez Remic* 21/07/1936 101.     Matilda Reš Kornik 17/02/1938 102.     Franc Rozoničnik 08/02/1941 103.     Dragica Sedej 12/11/1928 104.     Ana Selčan 26/01/1932 105.     Bogomira Sgerm 18/10/1937     Name Date of birth 106.     Jožef Skornšek 30/03/1938 107.     Marija Slokan 15/06/1929 108.     Stanko Slokan 07/01/1932 109.     Drago Karol Smolič 17/10/1926 110.     Valentin Stakne 20/12/1933 111.     Katarina Stojanšek 21/11/1937 112.     Darinka Šarlah 06/09/1935 113.     Milena Šemrov 02/11/1924 114.     Jelka Šporin 04/01/1935 115.     Mihaela Breda Štajnmec 24/09/1932 116.     Alojz Štiglic 28/09/1929 117.     Franc Štiglic 27/11/1938 118.     Janez Štiglic 27/11/1938 119.     Rozalija Šumej 02/09/1939 120.     Jerica Šuster 07/03/1942 121.     Ivanka Tamše 17/05/1937 122.     Ivanka Tavčar 02/04/1928 123.     Franc Teršek 17/10/1941 124.     Marjan Tovornik 31/01/1928 125.     Venčeslav Usar 01/10/1937 126.     Marija Vinčec 22/03/1933 127.     Stanka Vodopivec 12/10/1935 128.     Rezika Rozina Vrabič 19/03/1929 129.     Marija Vrbek 24/12/1937 130.     Vlado Weinberger 24/08/1933 131.     Stanko Zagode 15/09/1927 132.     Alojz Zagožen 21/06/1931 133.     Ivan Zagožen 10/04/1934 134.     Jakob Zagožen 01/07/1937 135.     Martin Zagožen 03/09/1926 136.     Vladimir Zagožen 12/07/1929 137.     Kristina Zalezina 04/12/1932 138.     Angela Zaveršnik 29/05/1933 139.     Marija Žagar 10/10/1926 140.     Milena Žerič 06/09/1941 141.     Andreja Žerovnik 13/10/1934 142.     Ivan Žmavc 18/01/1930     Name Date of birth 143.     Janez Žmavc 07/05/1932 144.     Peter Žmavc 06/12/1936 145.     Helena Žnidarčič 23/02/1938 146.     Ana Žohar 13/03/1934 147.     Jožefa Žvipelj 25/03/1938   * Applicants who died in the course of the proceedings.