CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2013

.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 } .s9BB96641 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .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 } .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. 30157/08 Jožef DOBAJ against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 March 2013 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 16 June 2008, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jožef Dobaj, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Zg. Kungota. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M. Graj, a lawyer practising in Ptuj. 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 2 October 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. He was charged with the criminal offences of ill-treatment and bodily harm inflicted on his partner. On 28 June 2004 the Maribor District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. He appealed. On 21 April 2005 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged a request for protection of legality. On 1 December 2005 the Supreme Court rejected his request. He lodged a constitutional appeal. On 11 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 18 December 2007. B.     Relevant domestic law For relevant domestic law see the Court’s judgments Tomažič v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13   December   2007). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings. In particular, he complained that the domestic courts disregarded a document he submitted as evidence. Finally, relying on Article 1 of Protocol 12 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that he was discriminated against in the domestic proceedings. THE LAW 1. Complaints under Articles 6 (length of proceedings) and 13 of the Convention The Court observes that the time to be taken in consideration started on 2   October 2001, when the proceedings were instituted, and ended on 18   December 2007, the date when the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant. The proceedings therefore lasted six years and two months at four levels 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court finds that there seem to be no delays attributable to him. As to the conduct of the domestic courts the Court observes that there were no major delays. It further notes that it did not take any of the instances more than three years to deliver their decision. Having regard to the latter and the Court’s case-law (see for example Bosich v. Slovenia , no.   39380/10, 4 December 2012; L.Z. v. Slovakia , no. 27753/06, 27   September 2011; and Lyszczyna v. Germany , no. 34863/04, 4 January 2008) the Court considers that the overall length of six years and two months at four levels of jurisdiction did not exceed what could be considered 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. 2. Other complaints As regards the complaints concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, the Court considers that having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article   35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Finally, as to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the Convention the Court notes that Protocol No. 12 entered into force with respect to Slovenia on 1 November 2010 whereas the proceedings ended in   2007. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares inadmissible the application.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President