CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 25 April 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39484/14 Mirjan FLEGO against Slovenia lodged on 22 May 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mirjan Flego, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Lucija. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Dokič, a lawyer practising in Piran. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 June 2006 the applicant filed a claim for the establishment of his property right over a real estate. He was represented by a lawyer who was a member of the Bar. The lawyer fixed the amount in dispute at 15,000   euros (EUR). On 25 January 2013 the Koper District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. On 19 November 2013 the Koper Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged a motion for leave to appeal on points of law with the help of his lawyer. On 20 December 2013 the Supreme Court issued an order for the payment of the court fees whereby it calculated them taking into account the amount in dispute at EUR 15,000. On 13 February 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to fix the amount in dispute. Referring to Section 367 (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Act and the advisory opinion it had given in 1993, the Supreme Court held that the parties were not entitled to appeal on points of law if the amount in dispute had not been fixed in their motion for leave. In the Supreme Court’s view, the documents submitted by the applicant, namely the first and second-instance decisions and the motion for leave to appeal did not show that the applicant had fixed the amount in dispute at any time in the proceedings; nor had the lower courts established the value of the litigation in their judgments. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which he complained that the Supreme Court, having calculated the court fees on the basis of the amount in dispute indicated in the action, had at its disposal information concerning that amount. It was argued that Section 367.b of the Civil Procedure Act did not require the parties to fix the amount in dispute in the motion for leave to appeal on points of law. Further, it was for the first-instance court to fix the amount in dispute in the judgment. The applicant should not bear the negative consequences of such an omission on the part of the court. On 10 April 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights which would have serious consequences for the applicant. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Under Section 44 of the Civil Procedure Act (Official Gazette no.   73/07, with a further amendment passed on 9 May 2008, Official Gazette no.   45/08) in non-pecuniary claims, the amount in dispute shall be defined as the amount fixed by the plaintiff in the action. However, if the amount fixed in the action is evidently too high or too low, thereby putting into question the right to appeal on points of law, the first-instance court shall, not later than at the main hearing and even before examining the merits, examine the correctness of the fixed amount in an expeditious and appropriate manner. According to Section 367 of the Civil Procedure Act an appeal on points of law shall be permitted if the amount of the value of the subject-matter of the part of the final judgment which is appealed against exceeds EUR   40,000. If the amount in dispute does not exceed that sum, an appeal on points of law may only be lodged if leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court. Under Section 367.b) of the same Act a party shall append a copy of the final judgment of the court of second-instance to the motion for leave to appeal on points of law; he or she may also append a copy of the first-instance court’s judgment and copies of other documents of the case-file showing the procedural error alleged. Moreover, a party shall indicate in a sufficiently precise and specific manner the legal question raised by his or her appeal and provision of law allegedly infringed; the circumstances showing importance of the legal question concerned, and briefly state the reasons why the court of second-instance had solved that issue unlawfully. In 1993 the Supreme Court gave an advisory opinion (Report no.   2/93, 16   December 1993, p. 12), pointing out that an appellant was obliged to indicate the amount in dispute in his or her particulars of claim in order to be able subsequently to exercise the right to appeal on points of law (Section 180   (2) of the Civil Procedure Act). In the absence of relevant information the Supreme Court would reject the appeal as inadmissible. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of access to the Supreme Court.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of access to the Supreme Court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to a restrictive interpretation of the Civil Procedure Act’s provisions on the admissibility of an appeal on points law concerning the obligation to fix the amount in dispute?