CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 février 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1E9782FA { width:361.5pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       96                     8.2.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAJARIČ v. SLOVENIA   In a judgment notified in writing on 8 February 2000 in the case of   Majarič v. Slovenia, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 300,000 Slovenian tolars for non-pecuniary damage.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Ljubo Majarič, is a Slovenian national born in 1952. He is serving a prison sentence.   On 6 December 1991 Mr Majarič was charged with sexual assault of a minor and abduction of minors. On 5 June 1992 the trial started before the Nova Gorica District Court (“the District Court”). The case was adjourned. On 28 August 1992 the District Court held a hearing. Subsequently two other hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s illness.     On 21 July 1992 the applicant was accused of another sexual offence. An indictment was filed on 18 January 1993. The applicant entered a plea against the indictment which was rejected on 15 February 1993. On 17 March 1993 the District Court joined the two sets of proceedings.   On 2 June 1993 the applicant was accused of another sexual offence. On 21 October 1993 a preliminary charge was filed in this respect. On 28 March 1995 the District Court decided to deal with all charges against the applicant in a single set of proceedings. In the period from 18 February 1997 to 9 July 1997 the District Court held several hearings. On 9 July 1997 the District Court convicted the applicant of sexual offences on several counts. A combined prison sentence of two years and eight months was imposed.   On 12 February 1998 the Koper High Court increased the sentence to three years’ imprisonment. On 26 March 1998 the applicant lodged a plea of nullity. The Supreme Court dismissed it on 17 September 1998. On 24 March 1998 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Koper High Court’s judgment of 12 February 1998. It was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 15   June 1998. On 12 October 1998 the applicant filed a further constitutional complaint concerning the Supreme Court’s decision of 17 September 1998. The Constitutional Court dismissed it on 1   December 1998.     2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13   December 1994. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 21 October 1998 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case was brought before the Court by the applicant on 21 January 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Judges ,   and also Michael O’Boyle, Section Registrar .     3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.   Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objection   The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not lodged an administrative appeal and, ultimately, a constitutional complaint. The Court dismissed the objection on the ground that it had not been raised in the proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The period which the Court took into consideration lasted four years and more than five months (Slovenia ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual petition pursuant to former Article 25 of the Convention on 28 June 1994).   The Court assessed the length of the proceedings in the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law (the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the authorities dealing with the case as well as what was at stake for the applicant). It held that the delays during the period under consideration are mainly imputable to the conduct of the domestic courts.   The Court did not find relevant the Government’s argument according to which the domestic courts had faced a heavy workload resulting from the economic and legislative reforms and concluded unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court held that the respondent State is to pay the applicant 300,000 Slovenian tolars in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction which included, among other things, the request for his retrial in Slovenia.     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Elected as the judge in respect of San Marino. [2] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.