CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 octobre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79 October 2005 Lukenda v. Slovenia - 23032/02 Judgment 6.10.2005 [Section III] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Respondent State encouraged to amend the existing range of remedies or to add new ones to secure effective redress for violations of the right to a fair trial   Article 13 Effective remedy Adequacy of domestic legislation to secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time: violation   Facts : The applicant suffered an injury at work and received disability benefits. In 1998, he instituted civil proceedings claiming an increase of his disability benefits. In 2002, the first-instance court delivered a judgment partly upholding the applicant’s claim. The applicant’s appeal against the judgment was allowed, and the proceedings ended in 2004 with another judgment by the Higher Court which increased the level of the applicant’s disability benefits. Law : The Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion): the effectiveness of the remedies advanced by the Government - an administrative action, a claim for damages in civil proceedings, a request for supervision and/or a constitutional appeal - whether taken separately or the aggregate of these procedures, had not been shown. Moreover, if an individual first brought an action in the administrative courts and was then required to lodge a tort claim, this would oblige him to institute two sets of proceedings and the duration of the combined proceedings would probably be excessive. In sum, it would be putting an unreasonable burden on the applicant to require him to exhaust both remedies (objection dismissed). Article 6(1) (reasonable time) – The total duration of the proceedings had been five years and three months. Although an opinion of a medical expert was required to decide the case, the latter was neither procedurally nor factually of exceptional complexity. Moreover, there was no evidence suggesting that the applicant had contributed in a significant way to the length of the proceedings. Hence, the overall length of the proceedings had been excessive, in particular the duration of the proceedings before the first-instance court, which had exceeded four years. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – The Government had failed to establish the effectiveness of the remedies taken separately or the aggregate thereof. See considerations above on the dismissal of the Government’s preliminary objection. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46 – As seen in the latest court statistics published by the Ministry of Justice of the respondent State, it was clear that the length of judicial proceedings remained a major problem in Slovenia. The violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time was not an isolated incident, but rather a systemic problem that resulted from inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of justice. Under Article 46, a State’s legal obligation is not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. In conclusion, the Court had identified some of the weaknesses of the legal remedies guaranteed by the respondent State, whilst acknowledging that certain recent developments showed reassuring improvements. Hence, to prevent future violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, it encouraged the respondent State to either amend the existing range of legal remedies or add new ones to secure effective redress for violations of this right. N.B. The respondent State’s obligation to secure through appropriate legal measures and administrative practices the right to a trial within a reasonable time was also included under the operative part of the judgment (six votes to one).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes