CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 mai 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s928B426D { width:40.69pt; display:inline-block } .sB01D3992 { width:164.28pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24519/06 Boris KOTNJEK against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 May 2012 as a Committee composed of: Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Angelika Nußberger, judges and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Boris Kotnjek, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Lendava. He is represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Rituper, a lawyer practising in Murska Sobota. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Main proceedings On 23 May 1996 the applicant (a private entrepreneur) instituted proceedings with the Maribor District Court seeking payment of 24,040   DEM for goods he had delivered to the respondent party, R. Between 1 October 1996 and 14 October 1999 the fist-instance court held six hearings, at which it heard the parties and one witness. At the last hearing the first-instance court rendered a judgment. The respondent party appealed. On 3 October 2000 the Maribor Higher Court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. On 6 December 2001 the Maribor District Court held a hearing. On   5   November 2003 the first-instance court appointed an expert in finances. On 1 October 2004 the fist-instance court held a second hearing at which it heard both parties and examined a witness. On the same day the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claim. The respondent party appealed. On 12 September 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 2. Proceedings concerning a claim for non-pecuniary damage on account of the alleged delays in the above proceedings Following the communication of the application under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, the State Attorney’s Office offered the applicant a settlement proposal under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). As the applicant was not satisfied with the amount offered he lodged, on 16 January 2008, a claim for compensation in accordance with section   25   (2). On 7 January 2009 the Lendava Local Court, after holding a public hearing, delivered a judgment finding that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached and awarded the applicant 1,700   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damaged sustained due to length of the proceedings. The State Attorney lodged an appeal which was rejected by the Maribor Higher on17 June 2009. B.     Relevant domestic law For relevant domestic law see Nezirović v. Slovenia ((dec.) no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in that regard. THE LAW Further to the notification of the case under Rule   54   §   2   (a) of the Rules of Court, the State Attorney’s Office offered a settlement proposals to the applicant under section 25 of the 2006 Act. As the applicant was not satisfied with the amount offered he lodged a claim before the domestic courts in accordance with section 25 (2). The first-instance court upheld his claim an awarded him 1,700 EUR for non-pecuniary damage sustained due to length of proceedings. The Court notes that subsequently only the State Attorney appealed against the first-instance judgment and not the applicant. The Court finds that the applicant must have been satisfied with the amount awarded in the first-instance judgment, since he decided not to appeal, and can therefore no longer claim to be a victim. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President