5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Loka pri Žusmu. 6.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the applicant was raped by her eldest uncle J.D., then aged nineteen, with whom she and her family were living at the time in her grandparents’ house. Thereafter J.D. forced the applicant to engage in sexual intercourse on a regular basis, approximately twice a week. This continued until March 1994, when the applicant, together with her mother, sister and stepfather moved to a nearby village, after which she would only visit her grandparents on the weekends and during the holidays. According to the applicant, on these occasions J.D. touched her in an inappropriate manner, and also attempted to have sexual intercourse with her once again. 7.  On 24 November 2000 the applicant told her school’s counsellor that she had been sexually abused. The school counsellor informed the local social work centre of the allegation of sexual abuse of a minor, and they, in turn, informed the police, who took a statement from the applicant. 8.  In the next few days the police questioned J.D., the applicant’s mother, sister, stepfather and grandfather, her doctor and the school counsellor. 9.  On 7 December 2000 a criminal complaint against J.D. for the sexual assault of a person younger than fifteen years of age was submitted to the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Celje under Article 183 § 3 of the Criminal Code. 10.  On 29 December 2000 the public prosecutor asked the investigation department of the Celje District Court to open a judicial investigation against J.D. for continuous sexual assault on a child. 11.  Having heard J.D., on 29 March 2001 the investigating judge issued a decision to open a judicial investigation against J.D. for continuous sexual assault on a child. 12.  On 9 May 2001 the public prosecutor sought to have the investigation against J.D. for continuous sexual assault on a child expanded to include the applicant’s younger sister, S. 13.  On 16 May 2001 the investigating judge questioned the applicant and S., their mother and the school counsellor whom the applicant had first spoken to about the sexual assault. In her statements to the investigating judge the applicant, who was at the time being treated in a hospital for psychological trauma, gave a detailed account of the events. 14.  The investigating judge appointed two clinical psychologists to prepare reports on the psychological states and characteristics of the applicant and of J.D., respectively. On 7 November 2001 the first expert submitted her report, in which she stated that the applicant exhibited characteristics typical of children who have been sexually abused which could be diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder. The other report concerning J.D. was submitted on 3 April 2002. 15.  On 28 May 2002 the public prosecutor indicted J.D. for sexual assault on a person younger than fifteen years of age. At the trial, the charge was modified to sexual assault on a person younger than fourteen years of age under Article 103 § 3 of the Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, the applicable legislation at the time of the events in question. 16.  On 10 September 2002 the president of the Celje District Court appointed R.G. as the applicant’s legal representative, as she was still a minor. 17.  On 16 January 2003, the district court excluded from the case file a summary of J.D.’s statement given to the police in the preliminary proceedings, before he had been provided with the guarantees of fair trial. 18.  On 22 January 2007 a district court judge to whom the applicant’s case had been assigned withdrew from the case on account of having taken note of documents which should have been excluded from the case file. 19.  On 19 February 2008 the Celje District Court scheduled the first hearing for 14 April and asked the Ministry of Justice to retrieve any court records regarding J.D. 20.  On 14 April 2008 the Celje District Court held a hearing, from which the public was excluded on the grounds of protection of the applicant’s and J.D.’s privacy. The court heard J.D., who denied the charges and stated that his nieces had never been entrusted to his care. At the same hearing the court revoked R.G.’s authority to act as the applicant’s lawyer, as the applicant had meanwhile attained the age of majority. 21.  Between 12 June 2008 and 7 April 2009 the court held another four hearings at which it examined the applicant, J.D., the clinical psychologist who had submitted the report on J.D. and the applicant’s school counsellor. At the first hearing, the applicant, while unable to remember all the details of the events in question, gave a statement that essentially matched her previous statements given in the investigation. Later on, when the parties and other participants were required to give fresh statements due to two longer periods of adjournment between the hearings, the applicant declared that it would be too traumatic for her to give another full account of the events, so she only provided some additional clarification. J.D. also maintained his plea of not guilty and answered some additional questions. The applicant’s mother and S., however, made use of the privilege against giving testimony that arose based on their family relationships with J.D.
The court sought an additional expert opinion with regard to S. and granted a defence request for additional evidence to be obtained from the clinical psychologist who had submitted an opinion on J.D.’s psychological state. Another expert opinion was also obtained from a psychiatrist, who established that at the time of the offences J.D.’s ability to understand his actions and control his behaviour had not been significantly impaired by emotional frustration and confusion as to his identity that he had been experiencing. The hearings were adjourned between 2 September and 18 December 2008 due to J.D.’s defence counsel being on sick leave. 22.  Having been informed by the court of her right to bring a civil claim for compensation against J.D., on 12 June 2008 the applicant first sought 22,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and on 4 February 2009 increased the claim to 53,000 EUR. 23.  On 17 September 2008 the applicant submitted an application for free legal aid, which was granted on 16 October 2008. The court assigned a lawyer to represent the applicant henceforth in the criminal proceedings. 24.  On 10 February 2009 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay Act (hereinafter “the 2006 Act”). She was informed on 25 February 2009 that a hearing was scheduled for 7 April 2009. 25.  On 8 April 2009 the Celje District Court rendered its judgment, finding J.D. guilty of the charges of continuous sexual assault on a person younger than fourteen years of age in the period from 27 March 1992 until 1994 with respect to the applicant and sexual assault on a person younger than fourteen years of age on an unspecified date in the period from 27 March 1992 until 1994 with respect to S. The court sentenced J.D. to three years and four months’ imprisonment. In setting the sentence, the district court took into account, on the one hand, the significant passage of time from the commission of the offence until conviction, and on the other, J.D.’s complete lack of remorse for the offences he had committed. The applicant’s claim for compensation was not decided, and she was instructed to pursue it in civil proceedings. 26.  J.D. appealed against his conviction and sentence. 27.  On 10 March 2010 the Celje Higher Court rendered a final judgment in which it dismissed the appeal and upheld J.D.’s conviction and sentence. 28.  Following unsuccessful settlement negations with the State Attorney’s Office, on 3 September 2010 the applicant lodged a claim under the 2006 Act seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 5,000, the maximum amount that could be awarded for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the criminal proceedings. 29.  On 27 May 2011 the Celje Local Court rendered a judgment, finding that the applicant’s right to trial within a reasonable time had been breached and ordering that the State pay EUR 4,000 to the applicant, together with default interest, while dismissing the remainder of the applicant’s claim. Having regard to the fact that the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case had lasted some nine years and two months, the court, noting in particular the lack of any activity between January 2003 and January 2007, concluded that this period could not be considered reasonable. In its detailed reasoning, the court emphasised that due to the nature of the criminal acts involved – two counts of continuous sexual assault on a minor committed against two victims, one of whom had been the applicant – the criminal proceedings should have been conducted in a particularly diligent, determined and prompt manner in order to alleviate, as much as possible, the applicant’s suffering and severe mental distress caused by frequently having to relive the traumatic events. The local court further pointed out that the delays must have been very stressful for her, in addition to which she had had no effective remedies at her disposal in order to accelerate the proceedings. Considering the continuous nature of the acts suffered by the applicant and the fact that she had been called to testify and relive these events a number of times during the proceedings, the local court deviated from the general practice of the domestic authorities to make an award, within the statutory range of between EUR 300 and 5,000, equal to 45% of the sum that would be awarded for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time by the Court. Thus, the applicant was awarded EUR 4,000, although she would not apparently have been entitled to such amount purely on the basis of the excessive length of the proceedings. 30.  The State Attorney lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 2 December 2011 the Celje Higher Court modified the first-instance judgment in so far as it concerned the payment of court fees. It rejected the remainder of the appeal.