KNEŽEVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
Inadmissible
Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Vran, State Attorney. The Croatian Government and the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who had been notified by the Registrar of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court), did not indicate that they intended to do so. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 24 October 1994 the applicants each instituted separate civil proceedings with the Koper Labour Court against their employer, the company L.K., claiming the repayment of a loan which they had previously given it in the form of bonds. 5. On 27 October 1994 the court decided to join the proceedings. 6. On 29 March 2002 the Koper Local Court adjourned the case and ordered the applicants’ representative to submit within sixty days an original power of attorney for the second and third applicants and new addresses in respect of all three applicants. The time-limit for the submission of the documents was subsequently prolonged. 7. The applicants’ representative submitted a fresh power of attorney in respect of the first applicant and requested a further extension of the time-limit with respect to the second and third applicants, which was granted. However, he did not submit the requested documents. 8. On 10 December 2003 the Koper Local Court rejected the second and third applicants’ claims on procedural grounds for failure to present a valid power of attorney. The two applicants appealed. Their appeals were dismissed by the Koper Higher Court on 23 January 2007. 9. On 28 September 2007 the Koper Local Court held a hearing in respect of the first applicant’s claim and dismissed it. The first applicant appealed. 10. On 8 October 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and he then lodged a constitutional complaint. 11. On 2 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint. 12. On 19 June 2009, after rejecting offers made by the State Attorney’s Office, the applicants, relying on the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), each separately brought claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage incurred due to alleged unreasonable length of proceedings. The cases were then dealt with jointly by the Kranj Local Court. 13. On 28 December 2010 the Kranj Local Court found that the applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached. It ordered the State to pay 2,925 euros (EUR) to the first applicant, EUR 1,620 to the second and the third applicant and ordered that each party had to bear their own costs. The court dismissed the remainder of the claims. The applicants appealed. 14. On 9 January 2013 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. 15. For relevant domestic law with respect to length of proceedings see Grzinčič v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, §§ 35-48, 3 May 2007). In particular, section 20(6) of the 2006 Act states that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning small claims apply in proceedings concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage, irrespective of the type or amount of claim. 16. The following provisions of the Constitutional Court Act (Official Gazette no. 15/94, with relevant amendments) are relevant to the present case: “(1) Where there has been a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms, a constitutional complaint may, under the conditions determined by this Act, be lodged against individual acts by which State authorities, local authorities, or bearers of public authority have decided on the rights, obligations, or legal entitlements of individuals or legal entities ...” “(1) The Constitutional Court decides as a panel of three Constitutional Court judges (hereinafter referred to as a panel) at a closed session whether to initiate proceedings on the basis of a constitutional complaint.” “(1) A constitutional complaint is not admissible if the violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms [alleged] did not have serious consequences for the complainant. (2) It is deemed that there has been no violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms having significant consequences for a complainant with regard to individual decisions: – issued in small claims disputes in accordance with the act which regulates civil procedure, or in other disputes if the value in dispute for the complainant does not exceed the amount which is determined by the definition of small claims disputes in the act which regulates civil procedure; – concerning costs of proceedings, where such a decision alone has been challenged in the constitutional complaint; – issued in property trespass disputes; – issued in minor offence cases. (3) Irrespective of the preceding paragraph, the Constitutional Court may in particularly justified cases decide exceptionally on a constitutional complaint against the individual decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph, notably where the decision appealed against concerns an important constitutional question which goes beyond the importance of the actual case.” 17. The Government submitted a number of decisions taken in cases falling under section 55a(2) of the Constitutional Court Act in which the Constitutional Court had accepted constitutional complaints for consideration on their merits. 18. In particular, they submitted eleven decisions issued in minor offence proceedings (Up-3663/07 of 19 June 2009; Up-320/10 and Up-456/10 of 9 April 2010; Up-319/10 of 23 June 2010; Up-847/10 of 16 September 2010; Up-1293/10 of 10 October 2011; Up-1544/10 of 10 October 2011; Up-1220/11 of 3 April 2012; Up-965/11 of 3 April 2012; Up-187/13 of 5 September 2014; Up-375/13 of 5 September 2014; and Up-718/13 of 4 November 2014), and two decisions given in costs-only proceedings (Up-1547/08 and U-I-147/08 of 16 April 2009 and Up-1454/10 of 10 October 2011). 19. Furthermore, they submitted three Constitutional Court decisions in which the constitutional complaint had been lodged against lower court decisions issued in a small claims dispute or in which the value in dispute for the complainant did not exceed the amount determined by the definition of a small claim (EUR 2,000). In decision no. Up-109/12 of 23 January 2014 the Constitutional Court accepted a constitutional complaint for consideration which raised questions of discrimination against people with disabilities in a case concerning severance pay which was below EUR 2,000. Decision no. Up-584/12 of 2 April 2013 concerned a defamation claim amounting to EUR 2,000, whereas the constitutional complaint involved raised freedom of expression issues. In decision no. Up-234/14 of 4 November 2014 the Constitutional Court accepted a constitutional complaint for consideration in a case in which the disputed amount was lower than EUR 2,000 but which raised questions of equal protection of rights. 20. In all of the above cases the Constitutional Court concluded that the complainants had succeeded in arguing that their case represented an important constitutional question and had thus fulfilled the conditions for consideration of the constitutional complaint under section 55a(3) of the Constitutional Court Act. 21. The Government also referred to seven cases in which the Constitutional Court had rejected constitutional complaints lodged against decisions in small claims disputes (Up-308/11 of 6 March 2012; Up-441/13 of 10 September 2013; Up-1201/12 of 10 September 2013; Up-1131/12 of 30 September 2013; Up-132/13 of 30 September 2013; Up-925/12 of 15 April 2014; and Up-368/14 of 12 September 2014). In such cases the Constitutional Court examined in some detail whether the complainants had complied with the criterion of there being an important constitutional question at stake.