CASE OF BUBNIK v. SLOVENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Angelika Nußberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Koper. 5. On 17 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Koper District Court concerning the division of joint property. 6. On 24 September 1997 the Koper District Court rejected the applicant’s claim on procedural grounds. The applicant appealed. 7. On 18 February 1998 the Koper Higher Court partially upheld the appeal of the applicant and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 8. On 14 August 2001 the Koper District court issued a partial judgment. Both parties appealed. 9. On 22 October 2002 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeals. 10. On 1 March 2007 the Koper District Court issued a judgment concerning the remainder of the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 11. On 18 November 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal concerning the decision on the main issue. The court however annulled the decision on the costs of proceedings and remitted that issue back to the first instance court. 12. On 18 August 2008 the Koper District Court issued a decision on the costs of proceedings. The applicant appealed. 13. On 18 November 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 10 December 2008. 14. On 29 September 2008 the applicant lodged an application for settlement with the State Attorney’s Office with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings. 15. On 26 May 2008 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed the applicant’s claim. 16. On 25 November 2009 the applicant, relying on Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), lodged a claim with the Koper Local Court seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 5,800 for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings. 17. On 25 November 2010 the Koper Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 18. On 17 January 2011 the Koper Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 19. In the course of proceedings, the State on 5 April 2011 acknowledged the claim of the applicant in the amount of 1,200 EUR. 20. On 16 November 2011 the Koper Local Court gave a judgment. The court found that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached and that, in addition to the 1,200 EUR, the State was to pay a further EUR 420 to the applicant for non-pecuniary damages and to reimburse the applicant EUR 275 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. In determining the amount of compensation, the court considered that the applicant had contributed to the duration of the proceedings by amending her claim several times and submitting written observations directly at the hearings which had as a consequence the adjournment of three hearings. Accordingly it deducted 10% from the amount to be awarded. The applicant appealed. 21. On 17 April 2012 the Koper Higher Court partially upheld the applicant’s appeal and modified the decision, ruling that the State was to pay the applicant in total EUR 2,500 as non-pecuniary damages and further EUR 586 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. The higher court also noted the applicant’s contribution to the duration of the proceedings.