CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s95B9FE86 { width:34.35pt; display:inline-block } .s573A15D6 { width:152.93pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28163/08 Stanislav ZAJEC against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   September 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 6 June 2008, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Stanislav Zajec, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Ljubljana. 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. On 28 March 1996 the applicant lodged a request with the Ljubljana-Šiška Administrative Unit for a site development permit. On 24 November 1997 he was requested to complete his application since he did not submit the relevant documents. On 17 December 1997 he requested an extension of deadline. On 10 March 1998 the applicant was again reminded that in case he fails to complete it, the application will be rejected. On 16 March 1998 the Administrative Unit received a letter from one of the co-owners stating that he would not give his consent and that the applicant had already started building illegally. On 3 April 1998 the applicant again lodged a request for the extension of deadline until the end of 1999, explaining that he needed time to gather the consent of the co-owners of the property. On 16 April 1998 the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning (“the Ministry”) issued a decision ordering the removal of the illegal structure. On 2 July 1999 the applicant again requested for an extension of deadline. On 26 November 1999 the Administrative Unit rejected his request as incomplete. He appealed. On 12 October 2000 the Ministry rejected the appeal. He instituted administrative proceedings. On 6 December 2000 he was requested by the court to complete his request with the relevant documents. On 13 December 2000 he submitted the missing documents. On 21 November 2001 the Administrative Court rendered a judgment rejecting his request. He appealed. On 4 March 2004 the applicant the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination before the first-instance. On 15 April 2004 the first-instance court issued a decision remitting the case to the Ministry. On 1 June 2004 the Ministry issued a decision and remitted the case for re-examination before the Ljubljana Administrative Unit. On 21 July 2004 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit rejected the applicant’s request for a site development permit. He appealed. On 7 March 2005 the Ministry rejected the appeal. He instituted administrative proceedings. On 27 September 2005 the Administrative Court rejected his request. He appealed. On 25 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. He lodged a constitutional appeal. On 12 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law For relevant domestic law see Nezirović v. Slovenia ((dec.) no. 16400/06, 25 November 2008) and Sirc v. Slovenia (no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard. THE LAW Further to the notification of the case under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, the Government informed the Court that the State Attorney’s Office had refused to apply section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) to the present case, stating that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time before the had not been infringed. As a result, no settlement proposal was submitted to the applicant. As to the length of proceedings before the administrative authorities, even assuming the duration of proceedings might raise an issue, the Court notes that the applicant failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. In   these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant cannot complain about the length of the proceedings before the lower administrative authorities since he did not, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, exhaust the remedies available under Slovenian law. This part of the application must therefore be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Sirc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002). As to the first set of court proceedings the Court notes that the time to be taken into consideration started on 12 October 2000 and ended on 15   April   2004. The proceedings lasted for three years and five months at two levels of jurisdiction, which can still be considered as reasonable. Subsequently, after a remittal, it took the Ministry one month to issue a new decision, which cannot be considered as excessive. As to the second set of court proceedings it is noted that the proceedings lasted two years and nine months at three levels of jurisdiction (from   7   March 2005 to 12 December 2007), which can be held as reasonable. Considering the above, the Court finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies before the lower administrative authorities, the Court has already found that the General Administrative Procedure Act and the Administrative Disputes Act did provide the applicants with an effective remedy in respect of their complaint about the length of the proceedings before the lower administrative authorities (see Sirc v. Slovenia , cited above). As to the complaints regarding the lack of effective remedies before the domestic courts, the Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see   Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, §   98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim that his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President