CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 December 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 12482/24 Jolanda KOELLA against Slovenia lodged on 24 April 2024 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicant. On 4   May 2004 the first-instance court issued an order allowing enforcement of a compensation award amounting to 59,417 euros (EUR). The enforcement proceedings were subsequently discontinued as the debtor objected to the enforcement and, therefore, it was referred to litigation. On 2 June 2010 the debtor brought an action against the enforcement of his real estate which, on 26 April 2017, the first ‑ instance court upheld. On 7   December 2017, the Celje Higher Court in part upheld the applicant’s appeal and allowed enforcement against half of the real estate in question based on the court’s order of 4 May 2004. During the course of these enforcement proceedings, which are still pending, the applicant filed several acceleratory remedies under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial Without Undue Delay (“the Act”), but they were rejected. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a trial within a reasonable time has been violated. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the preventive remedies available to her failed to expedite the proceedings and that she could not avail herself of the compensatory remedy since, according to the Act, such remedy can be used only after the termination of the proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the enforcement proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Jama v. Slovenia , no. 48163/08, §§ 35-36, 19 July 2012)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 6 § 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Jama , cited above, §§ 45-47)?