CASE OF STIBILJ v. SLOVENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary
5. The applicants, daughter and mother, were born in 1949 and 1921, respectively, and live in Ajdovščina. 6. On 2 February 1989 the Ajdovščina Municipality Land Consolidation Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) adopted a land consolidation programme concerning, inter alia, land owned by the first applicant’s legal predecessor and a separate piece of land owned by the second applicant. 7. On 4 March 1989 the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant appealed against the Commission’s decision before the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority (“the Authority”), arguing that they had not been duly compensated for the plots which they had owned and which had been transferred to the land consolidation programme. 8. On 6 November 1990 the Commission amended the land consolidation programme by assigning the second applicant a different plot of land. The second applicant appealed against the decision. 9. On 21 December 1990 the first applicant’s predecessor lodged an appeal for the failure of the Authority to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit. 10. On 1 February 1991 the Authority granted the first applicant’s legal predecessor’s appeal, remitting the case to the Commission for further consideration. The Authority found that the operative part of the decision lacked clarity and that the Commission had misapplied the law. 11. On 28 June 1994 the Convention became operational in respect of Slovenia. 12. On 16 November 1994 the Authority granted the second applicant’s appeal against the decision of 6 November 1990, finding that the operative part of the decision was inconsistent with its reasoning. The case was remitted to the Commission for further consideration. 13. On 15 December 1994, 15 March 1996, 24 April 1996 and 20 February 1997 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant lodged informal motions before the Commission, asking that the proceedings be expedited. 14. On 10 April 1997 – the Commission having failed to undertake further examination of their cases – the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant each lodged a separate appeal with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (“the Ministry”) alleging that the Commission had failed to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit. Moreover, on 30 June 1997 they both appealed to the Ministry to expedite the resolution of their respective land consolidation decisions. 15. On 25 September 1997 – the Ministry not having responded to their appeal – the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant brought an action before the Administrative Court for the failure of the Ministry to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit. 16. On 24 September 1999 the Administrative Court allowed those actions and ordered the Ministry to decide on the matter at issue within thirty days from the date on which its judgment became final. 17. Meanwhile, on 16 August 1999 the Ajdovščina Administrative Unit (previously the Commission, hereinafter “the Administrative Unit”), which had acquired competence to decide on matters of land consolidation, adopted new decisions on the land at issue. 18. On 23 September 1999 the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant appealed before the Ministry against those decisions. 19. On 25 August 2000 their appeals were allowed by the Ministry, which again assigned them different plots of land to compensate them for the loss of their original plots. 20. On 10 November 2000 the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant brought actions for judicial review (administrative action) before the Administrative Court against the Ministry’s decisions of 25 August 2000 on the grounds that the Ministry had failed to properly consider the criteria applicable to the land consolidation programme and had thereby violated their right to equality before the law. 21. On 23 January 2001 the first applicant’s legal predecessor died and the first applicant inherited a part of his land including plots subject to land consolidation proceedings. She then intervened in the proceedings as the heir. 22. On 11 April 2003 and 9 May 2003, respectively, the Administrative Court allowed the applicants’ actions for judicial review and annulled the Ministry’s decisions of 25 August 2000 on the grounds that the applicants had not been acquainted with the expert opinion on which the Ministry had based its decisions and that no reasons had been provided for the dismissal of the objections to the distribution of land. The Administrative Court remitted the cases to the Ministry for further consideration. 23. On 15 May 2007 the Ministry adopted new decisions concerning the distribution of land in respect of the first and second applicant. 24. On 17 June 2007 the applicants each brought another action for judicial review (administrative action) against those new decisions before the Administrative Court. 25. On 11 February 2008 and 3 March 2009 the applicants each lodged an informal motion before the Administrative Court to expedite the resolution of their action. 26. On 19 June 2009 and 23 October 2009, respectively, the Administrative Court allowed the first and second applicants’ actions for judicial review, annulling the Ministry’s decisions of 15 May 2007, and again remitted the cases to the Ministry for further consideration. 27. On 23 November 2009 and 10 May 2010 the first and second applicants lodged informal motions before the Ministry, asking that the proceedings be expedited. Moreover, three other similar motions were lodged before the Ministry by the first applicant on 27 August 2012, 4 December 2012 and 27 January 2013. 28. On 5 April 2013 the Ministry issued a decision annulling the Administrative Unit’s decision of 16 August 1999 (see paragraph 17 above) and remitted the cases to it. 29. On 20 May 2014 and 2 June 2014 the Administrative Unit scheduled oral hearings for 12 June 2014 and 19 June 2014, respectively. Prior to the hearings, the first applicant informed the Administrative Unit that she was unable to participate in the hearing due to medical treatment and that the second applicant could not participate as she was seriously ill and bedridden. 30. On 28 August 2014 the Administrative Unit held an oral hearing regarding the applicants’ cases. Land survey and agriculture experts were appointed to consider the first applicant’s requests regarding the land and an agriculture expert was appointed in connection with the second applicant’s requests. 31. The land consolidation proceedings were still pending on the date of the Government’s last communication with the Court.