CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1892/07 Rudolf HOFMAN against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   December 2012 as a Committee composed of: Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Rudolf Hofman, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Polzela. He was represented before the Court by Mr   B.   Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were 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 19 November 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company Adriatic d.d. before the Krško District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in a car accident. Due to pending criminal proceedings concerning the same accident, the first hearing, scheduled for 3 June 2004, was postponed indefinitely on the request of the applicant. On 17 June 2004 the court issued a decision on stay of proceedings. On 21 November 2006 the court obtained information that the criminal proceedings were terminated. On 31 January 2007 the court issued a decision resuming the proceedings. On 13 April 2007 a hearing was held where the parties reached a settlement. B.     Relevant domestic law For relevant domestic law see Maksimovič v. Slovenia (no. 28662/05, 22   June 2010). COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. THE LAW Further to the communication of the case under Rule   54   §   2   (b) of the Rules of Court, the Government argued non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and alternatively proposed the Court to reject the application as manifestly ill-founded, stating that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed. The applicant contested these arguments. The time to be taken in consideration in the present case started on 19   November 2002, when the proceedings were instituted, and ended on 13   April 2007, when the settlement was reached. The proceedings therefore lasted four years and four months at one level of jurisdiction. The Court recalls that the “reasonable” length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities , Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). The case concerned a compensation claim which cannot be regarded as complex. The Court notes that the proceedings were stayed within three weeks of the applicant’s request after they had been pending for a little less than 19   months. The domestic court appears to have resumed the proceedings of its own volition and without any motion on the part of the applicant. The applicant does not claim that the adjournment was unreasonable in itself, or that the period of adjournment was excessive. In addition, the criminal proceedings were terminated within two years and seven months and the civil proceedings were ultimately settled within three months of their resumption. Having regard to the foregoing and notwithstanding the initial delay of one year and six months before the first hearing was scheduled the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings can still be considered as reasonable. The Court therefore finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies 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. Therefore, this claim does not reveal any appearance of violation of this provision. 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