ZAJC v. SLOVENIA
Inadmissible
Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicants are Slovenian nationals who live in Slovenia. The first four applicants, Mr Zajc, Mr Podlogar, Mr Hohkraut and Mr Januš were represented before the Court by Mr Boštjan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The fifth applicant, Mr Rozman, was not represented by a lawyer. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicants were parties to civil proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007. The relevant length of each of the proceedings is indicated in the attached table. 4. On 20 and 22 February 2007, 21 May 2007 and 11 September 2007 the respondent Government were given notice of the present applications. 5. On the dates indicated in the table the State Attorney’s Office sent settlement proposals to the applicants under section 25 of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). In its proposals, the State Attorney’s Office acknowledged the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offered to pay monetary compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of the costs and expenses connected with the case, if claimed, to each applicant (see the attached table). 6. Subsequently, each of the applicants informed the State Attorney’s Office that they were not willing to accept the proposals as the sums offered were too low. At the same time, they set out their proposals with a view to securing settlements. 7. No settlements have been reached so far. 8. The Slovenian Government adopted on 12 December 2005 a Joint State Project on the Elimination of Court Backlogs, the “Lukenda Project”. Its goal is the elimination of backlogs in Slovenian courts and prosecutor’s offices by the end of 2010, by providing for structural and managerial reform of the judiciary. As a part of the “Lukenda Project” the Parliament adopted the 2006 Act (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, Official Journal, No. 49/2006) which has been implemented since 1 January 2007. 9. Section 25 of the 2006 Act lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court: “(1) In cases where an infringement of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party has filed a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this Act, the State Attorney’s Office shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within four months of the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure. The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the State Attorney’s Office within two months of the date of receipt of the proposal of the State Attorney’s Office. The State Attorney’s Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within four months at the latest..... (2) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not acceded to or the State Attorney’s Office and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within four months of the date on which the party filed its proposal, the party may bring an action before the competent court under this Act. The party may bring an action within six months of receiving the State Attorney’s Office reply that the party’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to, or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the State Attorney’s Office to decide to proceed with settlement. Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court.” 10. The following parts of the 2006 Act are relevant as regards the “claim for just satisfaction”: “When deciding on the legal remedies under this Act, the circumstances of the particular case shall be taken into account, namely: its complexity in terms of facts and law; actions of the parties to the proceedings, in particular as regards the use of procedural rights and fulfilment of obligations in the proceedings; compliance with rules on the set order for resolving cases, or with statutory deadlines for fixing preliminary hearings or for giving court decisions; the manner in which the case was heard before a supervisory appeal or a motion for a deadline was lodged; the nature and type of case and its importance for a party.” “.... (2) Just satisfaction shall be provided by: i. payment of monetary compensation for damage caused by an infringement of the right to a trial without undue delay; ii. a written statement from the State Attorney’s Office that the party’s right to a trial without undue delay has been infringed; iii. the publication of a judgment that the party’s right to a trial without undue delay has been infringed.” “(1) Monetary compensation shall be payable for non-pecuniary damage caused by an infringement of the right to a trial without undue delay. Strict liability for any damage caused shall lie with the Republic of Slovenia. (2) Monetary compensation for individual finally decided cases shall be granted in the amount of 300 up to 5,000 euros. “... (3) Territorial jurisdiction for decision-making on an action for damages under this Act shall lie with the local court in whose district the plaintiff is a permanent or temporary resident or has registered office. ... (6) Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court. (7) Appeal on points of law shall be excluded for disputes on damage under this Act.” “... (2) The State Attorney’s Office shall pay monetary compensation and the party’s costs of the proceedings on the basis of a final court decision which has established an infringement of the right to a trial without undue delay in the proceedings, under section 20 or section 21 of the present Act.” ...” “Funds ... shall be earmarked in the Budget of the Republic of Slovenia within the framework of the financial plan of the State Attorney’s Office.” 11. Section 27 of the amended Personal Income Tax Act (Zakon o dohodnini, Official Journal No. 117/06), which entered into force on 1 January 2007, provides that monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage received in accordance with the 2006 Act is exempt from personal income tax (dohodnina).