1 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS RECUEIL DESARRÊTSETDÉCISIONS 2005-X REGISTRY OF THE COURT GREFFE DE LA COUR COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONSEIL DE L EUROPE STRASBOURG CARL HEYMANNS VERLAG GMBH KÖLN MÜNCHEN
2 Internet addresses of the Court/Adresses Internet de la Cour Web: The Publisher/L éditeur Carl Heymanns Verlag GmbH Ein Unternehmen von Wolters Kluwer Deutschland Luxemburger Straße 449 D Köln offers special terms to anyone purchasing a complete set of the judgments and decisions and also arranges for their distribution, in association with the agents for certain countries as listed below/ offre des conditions spéciales pour tout achat d une collection complète des arrêts et décisions et se charge aussi de les diffuser, en collaboration, pour certains pays, avec les agents de vente ci-dessous mentionnés. Belgium/Belgique Etablissements Emile Bruylant 67, rue de la Régence B-1000 Bruxelles Luxembourg Librairie Promoculture 14, rue Duscher (place de Paris) B.P L-1011 Luxembourg-Gare The Netherlands/Pays-Bas B.V. Juridische Boekhandel & Antiquariaat A. Jongbloed & Zoon Noordeinde 39 NL-2514 GC La Haye/ s-gravenhage 2008 ISBN: Printed in Germany
3 From 1 November 1998, the Reports of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights contain a selection of judgments delivered and decisions adopted after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. All judgments and decisions of the Court (with the exception of decisions taken by committees of three judges pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention), including those not published in this series, are available in the Court s case-law database (HUDOC) which is accessible via the Court s website (http://www.echr.coe.int). Note on citation The form of citation for judgments and decisions published in this series from 1 November 1998 follows the pattern: name of case (in italics), application number, paragraph number (for judgments), abbreviation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), year and number of volume. In the absence of any indication to the contrary the cited text is a judgment on the merits delivered by a Chamber of the Court. Any variation from that is added in brackets after the name of the case: (dec.) for a decision on admissibility, (preliminary objections) for a judgment concerning only preliminary objections, (just satisfaction) for a judgment concerning only just satisfaction, (revision) for a judgment concerning revision, (interpretation) for a judgment concerning interpretation, (striking out) for a judgment striking the case out, or (friendly settlement) for a judgment concerning a friendly settlement. [GC] is added if the judgment or decision has been given by the Grand Chamber of the Court. Examples Judgment on the merits delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland, no /98, 24, ECHR 1999-II Judgment on the merits delivered by the Grand Chamber Campbell v. Ireland [GC], no /98, 24, ECHR 1999-II Decision on admissibility delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (dec.), no /98, ECHR 1999-II Decision on admissibility delivered by the Grand Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (dec.) [GC], no /98, ECHR 1999-II Judgment on preliminary objections delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (preliminary objections), no /98, 15, ECHR 1999-II Judgment on just satisfaction delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (just satisfaction), no /98, 15, ECHR 1999-II Judgment on revision delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (revision), no /98, 15, ECHR 1999-II Judgment on interpretation delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (interpretation), no /98, 15, ECHR 1999-II Judgment striking the case out delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (striking out), no /98, 15, ECHR 1999-II Judgment on a friendly settlement delivered by a Chamber Campbell v. Ireland (friendly settlement), no /98, 15, ECHR 1999-II
4 Depuis le 1 er novembre 1998, le Recueil des arrêts et décisions de la Cour européenne des Droits de l Homme renferme une sélection des arrêts rendus et des décisions adoptées après l entrée en vigueur du Protocole n o 11 à la Convention de sauvegarde des Droits de l Homme et des Libertés fondamentales. Tous les arrêts et décisions de la Cour (à l exception des décisions prises par des comités de trois juges en application de l article 28 de la Convention), y compris ceux et celles non publiés dans la présente série, se trouvent dans la base de données sur la jurisprudence de la Cour (HUDOC), accessible sur le site Internet de la Cour (http://www.echr.coe.int). Note concernant la citation des arrêts et décisions Les arrêts et décisions publiés dans la présente série à compter du 1 er novembre 1998 sont cités de la manière suivante : nom de l affaire (en italique), numéro de la requête, numéro du paragraphe (pour les arrêts), sigle de la Cour européenne des Droits de l Homme (CEDH), année et numéro du recueil. Sauf mention particulière, le texte cité est celui d un arrêt sur le fond rendu par une chambre de la Cour. L on ajoute après le nom de l affaire «(déc.)» pour une décision sur la recevabilité, «(exceptions préliminaires)» pour un arrêt ne portant que sur des exceptions préliminaires, «(satisfaction équitable)» pour un arrêt ne portant que sur la satisfaction équitable, «(révision)» pour un arrêt de révision, «(interprétation)» pour un arrêt d interprétation, «(radiation)» pour un arrêt rayant l affaire du rôle, «(règlement amiable)» pour un arrêt sur un règlement amiable, et «[GC]» si l arrêt ou la décision ont été rendus par la Grande Chambre de la Cour. Exemples Arrêt rendu par une chambre sur le fond Dupont c. France,n o 45678/98, 24, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt rendu par la Grande Chambre sur le fond Dupont c. France [GC], n o 45678/98, 24, CEDH 1999-II Décision rendue par une chambre sur la recevabilité Dupont c. France (déc.), n o 45678/98, CEDH 1999-II Décision rendue par la Grande Chambre sur la recevabilité Dupont c. France (déc.) [GC], n o 45678/98, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt rendu par une chambre sur des exceptions préliminaires Dupont c. France (exceptions préliminaires), n o 45678/98, 15, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt rendu par une chambre sur la satisfaction équitable Dupont c. France (satisfaction équitable), n o 45678/98, 15, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt de révision rendu par une chambre Dupont c. France (révision), n o 45678/98, 15, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt d interprétation rendu par une chambre Dupont c. France (interprétation), n o 45678/98, 15, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt rendu par une chambre rayant l affaire du rôle Dupont c. France (radiation), n o 45678/98, 15, CEDH 1999-II Arrêt rendu par une chambre sur un règlement amiable Dupont c. France (règlement amiable), n o 45678/98, 15, CEDH 1999-II
5 Contents/Table des matières Subject matter/objet des affaires... Page VII Lukenda v. Slovenia, no /02, judgment of 6 October Lukenda c. Slovénie,n o 23032/02, arrêt du 6 octobre N.A. et autres c. Turquie,n o 37451/97, arrêt du 11 octobre N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no /97, judgment of 11 October Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no /96, judgment of 19 October Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], n o 32555/96, arrêt du 19 octobre Ouranio Toxo et autres c. Grèce, n o 74989/01, arrêt du 20 octobre 2005 (extraits) Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, no /01, judgment of 20 October 2005 (extracts) Emrullah Karagöz c. Turquie, n o 78027/01, arrêt du 8 novembre 2005 (extraits) Emrullah Karagöz v. Turkey, no /01, judgment of 8 November 2005 (extracts) Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, judgment of 8 November 2005 (extracts) Khoudoïorov c. Russie, n o 6847/02, arrêt du 8 novembre 2005 (extraits) Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos /01 and 65900/01, 6 July Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], n os 65731/01 et 65900/01, 6 juillet Clarke v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no /02, 28 August 2005 (extracts) Clarke c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), n o 23695/02, 28 août 2005 (extraits) 391
6 VI CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES Page Ceylan c. Turquie (déc.), n o 68953/01, 30 août Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no /01, 30 August Leveau et Fillon c. France (déc.), n os 63512/00 et 63513/00, 6 septembre Leveau and Fillon v. France (dec.), nos /00 and 63513/00, 6 September
7 Subject matter/objet des affaires Article 3 Conditions of transport of remand prisoner to court hearings Khudoyorov v. Russia, p. 301 Conditions de transport d un détenu entre la maison d arrêt et le tribunal Khoudoïorov c. Russie, p. 311 Article 5 1 Article 5 Remand prisoner taken back to gendarmerie command for questioning Emrullah Karagöz v. Turkey, p. 289 Détenu reconduit à la gendarmerie pour interrogatoire après sa mise en détention provisoire Emrullah Karagöz c. Turquie, p. 277 Article 6 1 Article 6 Secretary of State s certificate blocking judicial review proceedings relating to health deterioration allegedly due to army gas tests Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], p. 87 Certificat du ministre bloquant la procédure de contrôle juridictionnel relative à une détérioration de la santé qui serait due à des tests sur des gaz effectués dans l armée Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], p. 161 Independence and impartiality of district and circuit judges in proceedings against the Lord Chancellor s Department Clarke v. the United Kingdom (dec.), p. 375 Indépendance et impartialité des district judges et des circuit judges dans les procédures dirigées contre le ministère de la Justice Clarke c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), p. 391 Replacement of military judge by a civilian judge during proceedings in national security court Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), p. 419 Remplacement du juge militaire par un magistrat civil au cours de la procédure devant une cour de sûreté de l Etat Ceylan c. Turquie (déc.), p. 409 Article 8 Failure to provide an adequate procedure enabling applicant to access information of assistance in assessing health risk due to participation in army gas tests Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], p. 87
8 VIII SUBJECT MATTER/OBJET DES AFFAIRES Manquement à offrir une procédure adéquate qui eût permis au requérant d obtenir des informations utiles pour évaluer les risques pour sa santé dus à sa participation à des tests sur des gaz effectués dans l armée Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], p. 161 Inapplicability of Article 8 to buildings housing livestock Leveau and Fillon v. France (dec.), p. 443 Non-applicabilité de l article 8 aux bâtiments abritant le bétail Leveau et Fillon c. France (déc.), p. 429 Article 11 Attacks against offices of a political party representing a minority Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, p. 261 Attaques contre le bureau d un parti politique défenseur d une minorité Ouranio Toxo et autres c. Grèce, p. 245 Article 14 Differing entitlement of men and women to certain social security benefits of a noncontributory nature Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], p. 321 Différences entre les hommes et les femmes quant à l éligibilité à certaines prestations de sécurité sociale de nature non contributive Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], p. 347 Article 35 1 Article 35 Adequacy of domestic legislation to secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time Lukenda v. Slovenia,p.1 Caractère adéquat de la législation interne visant à faire respecter le droit à un procès dans un délai raisonnable Lukenda c. Slovénie,p.29 Article 46 Respondent State encouraged to amend existing range of remedies or add new ones so as to secure effective redress for violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time Lukenda v. Slovenia,p.1 Etat défendeur incité soit à amender la gamme actuelle des voies de recours soit à en créer de nouveaux en sorte que les violations du droit d être jugé dans un délai raisonnable puissent être redressées de manière effective Lukenda c. Slovénie,p.29
9 SUBJECT MATTER/OBJET DES AFFAIRES IX Article 1 of Protocol No. 1/Article 1 du Protocole n o 1 Deprivation of ownership of coastal land and demolition of partially built hotel without compensation N.A. and Others v. Turkey,p.73 Privation de propriété concernant un terrain situé sur le littoral et destruction d un hôtel en construction sur ce terrain sans indemnisation N.A. et autres c. Turquie,p.59 Distinction in the Court s case-law between contributory and non-contributory benefits no longer justified Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], p. 321 Fin de la justification de la distinction opérée dans la jurisprudence de la Cour entre prestations contributives et prestations non contributives Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], p. 347
11 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA (Application no /02) THIRD SECTION JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER English original.
13 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT 3 SUMMARY 1 Respondent State encouraged to amend existing range of remedies or add new ones so as to secure effective redress for violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time Article 35 1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Adequacy of domestic legislation to secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time Possibility of expediting unduly protracted proceedings Compensation for non-pecuniary damage Administrative action Claim for damages in civil proceedings Request for supervision Constitutional appeal Effectiveness of combined use of remedies Probable excessive duration of the combined proceedings Unreasonable burden on applicant Article 46 Abide by judgment Systemic problem Inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of justice Measures of a general character Supervision by Committee of Ministers Respondent State encouraged to amend existing range of remedies or add new ones so as to secure effective redress for violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time * * * In 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings claiming an increase in his disability benefits. The proceedings ended in Before the Court he complained that the proceedings had lasted too long and that the relevant remedies were ineffective. Held (1) Article 35 1: The effectiveness of the remedies advanced by the Government an administrative action, a claim for damages in civil proceedings, a request for supervision and/or a constitutional appeal whether taken separately or together, had not been shown. Moreover, if an individual first brought an action in the administrative courts and was then required to lodge a claim in tort, this would oblige him to institute two sets of proceedings and the duration of the combined proceedings would probably be excessive. In sum, it would be placing an unreasonable burden on the applicant to require him to make use of both remedies. Conclusion: Government s preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). (2) Article 6 1: The overall length of the proceedings amounting to five years and three months (including four years at first instance) had been excessive. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). 1. This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
14 4 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT (3) Article 13: The Government had failed to establish the effectiveness of the remedies taken separately or combined. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). (4) Article 46: As seen in the latest statistics published by the Ministry of Justice, the length of judicial proceedings remained a major problem in Slovenia. The violation of the applicant s right to a trial within a reasonable time was not an isolated incident, but rather a systemic problem that resulted from inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of justice. Under Article 46, a State s legal obligation was not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. The Court identified some of the weaknesses of the legal remedies guaranteed by the respondent State, whilst acknowledging that certain recent developments showed reassuring improvements. To prevent future violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the Court encouraged the respondent State to either amend the existing range of legal remedies or add new ones so as to secure effective redress for violations of that right. Conclusion: As the above violations had originated in the malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice, the respondent State had, through appropriate legal measures and administrative practices, to secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time (six votes to one). Article 41: The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. Case-law cited by the Court Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61 Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198 Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200 Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V Majarič v. Slovenia, no /95, Commission decision of 3 December 1997, unreported Selmouni v. France [GC], no /94, ECHR 1999-V A.P. v. Italy [GC], no /97, 28 July 1999 Frydlender v. France [GC], no /96, ECHR 2000-VII Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos /98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII Kudła v. Poland [GC], no /96, ECHR 2000-XI Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no /94, ECHR 2001-I Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no /98, 2 October 2001 Horvat v. Croatia, no /99, ECHR 2001-VIII Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no /00, ECHR 2002-VIII Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no /99, ECHR 2003-VIII Doran v. Ireland, no /99, ECHR 2003-X
15 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT 5 Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no /96, ECHR 2004-V Predojević and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), nos /98, 49740/99, 49747/99 and 54217/00, 9 December 2004
17 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT 7 In the case of Lukenda v. Slovenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr J. HEDIGAN, President, Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVÍD THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Mrs I. ZIEMELE, judges, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2005, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no /02) against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( the Convention ) by a Slovenian national, Mr Franjo Lukenda ( the applicant ), on 30 May The applicant was represented by the Verstovšek lawyers. The Slovenian Government ( the Government ) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General. 3. The applicant alleged under Article 6 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which he had been a party had been excessive. In substance, he also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention). 4. On 7 September 2004 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Slovenia. 6. On 6 January 1994 the applicant was injured at work in a lignite mine. Since then, he has been disabled and in receipt of disability benefits. His employer had taken out accident insurance for him with
18 8 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT an insurance company, T. ( ZT ). His disability was assessed at 13%. In the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 ZT paid partial disability benefits. 7. On 30 December 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) against ZT claiming a 7% increase in his disability benefits on the basis of an expert medical opinion. He also sought an exemption from court fees. On 26 August 1999 the applicant lodged pleadings and additional evidence and requested the court to assign an independent medical expert to determine the extent of his disability. He submitted additional documents and pleadings on 13 October 1999, 16 November 2000, 27 February, 9 and 17 April and 30 May On 7 November 2000 a hearing was held to consider the applicant s request for the appointment of a medical expert. Although the request was granted, the appointment was not made. On 23 November 2000 the applicant submitted documents and requested the court to issue the order appointing the medical expert. On 28 November 2000 the court appointed a medical expert to determine the extent of the applicant s disability. He submitted his report on 26 April On 25 May 2001 the applicant filed pleadings and increased his claim by 2.5%. On 10 July 2001 the applicant filed pleadings and requested that an additional opinion be sought from the appointed expert. On 16 October 2001 a hearing was held and the court decided that additional clarifications were required from the expert. On 23 November 2001 the court reappointed the same expert with instructions to submit an additional opinion. On 11 February 2002 the expert submitted an additional opinion, which was served on the parties. On 9 April and 30 May 2002 the applicant made requests for a hearing. On 25 September 2002 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. On 30 December 2002 the applicant s lawyers received the judgment, which upheld the applicant s claim in part. 8. On 31 December 2002 the applicant appealed. ZT crossappealed. On 19 February 2004 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) allowed the applicant s appeal in part. It increased the level of his disability benefits and awarded the applicant costs and expenses. The decision became final the same day. On 8 April 2004 the judgment was served on the applicant s lawyers.
19 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT 9 II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A. The 1991 Constitution 9. The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Ustava Republike Slovenije) read as follows: Article 23 Everyone has the right to have any decision regarding his rights, duties and any charges brought against him made without undue delay by an independent, impartial court constituted by law.... Article 26 Everyone shall have the right to compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts of a person or body when performing a function or engaged in an activity on behalf of a State or local authority or as a holder of public office.... Article 157 A court with jurisdiction to review administrative decisions shall [have jurisdiction to] determine the legality of final individual decisions by State or local authorities or holders of public office concerning the rights or obligations or legal entitlement of individuals and organisations, if no other legal protection is specifically provided. If no other legal protection is provided, the court with jurisdiction to review administrative decisions shall also [have jurisdiction to] determine the legality of individual acts and decisions which encroach upon the constitutional rights of the individual. Article 160 The Constitutional Court shall hear:... constitutional appeals in which specific acts are alleged to have infringed a human right or fundamental freedom;... Unless otherwise provided by law, the Constitutional Court shall hear a constitutional appeal only if legal remedies have been exhausted. The Constitutional Court shall decide whether a constitutional appeal is admissible for adjudication on the basis of statutory criteria and procedures. B. The Constitutional Court Act The relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act (Zakon o Ustavnem sodišču) read as follows: Section 1 The Constitutional Court is the highest body of judicial authority for the protection of constitutionality, legality, human rights and basic freedoms... Decisions of the Constitutional Court are legally binding.
20 10 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT Section 50 Anyone who believes that his or her human rights and basic freedoms have been infringed by a particular act of a State body, local body or statutory authority may lodge a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by this Act.... Section 51 A constitutional appeal may be lodged only after all legal remedies have been exhausted. Before all special legal remedies have been exhausted, the Constitutional Court may exceptionally hear a constitutional appeal if a violation is probable and the appellant will suffer irreparable consequences as a result of a particular act. C. Case-law of the Constitutional Court 11. In a decision of 7 November 1996 (no. Up 277/96), the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) ruled that constitutional appeals under Article 160 of the Slovenian Constitution were admissible in length of proceedings cases where the proceedings were still pending. However, it further stated that, in order to ensure the right to due process of law in the Slovenian legal system, the only proper judicial protection available was through an action in the administrative courts. A constitutional appeal was, as a rule, admissible only after recourse to that legal remedy. 12. In a decision of 7 December 2000 (no. Up 73/97), the Constitutional Court ruled that, once the court proceedings had been concluded, an individual could no longer bring an action in the administrative courts complaining about the length of proceedings. Therefore, since there was no longer any violation to be remedied, it was no longer possible to lodge a constitutional appeal. 13. In a decision of 17 December 2003 (no. Up 85/03-12), the Constitutional Court held that where, because the substantive proceedings had ended, an action to complain of the length of proceedings could no longer be brought in the administrative courts, it was still open to the alleged victim to seek compensation in civil proceedings. D. The Administrative Disputes Act The Administrative Disputes Act 1997 (Zakon o upravnem sporu) provides for the protection of the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time through administrative proceedings in the administrative court and, on appeal, in the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). Under section 2(1) and (2) the court has a broad discretion to adapt its decision to the nature of the violated constitutional right, to order adequate redress, and to decide the applicant s claim for damages.
21 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT 11 Under section 62 it is possible to seek a declaration that there has been a violation of a right guaranteed by Article 23 of the Constitution and compensation for any loss. In addition, under section 69, a temporary injunction may be sought to prevent serious harm or to guard against an imminent threat of violence. E. Case-law of the administrative courts 15. In case no. U 836/98, the Administrative Court (Upravno sodišče) found on 7 March 2000 that the right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated in a case which had been pending before the Labour and Social Court for twenty-three months. However, on 18 December 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment on appeal, as the proceedings had terminated by the time of the appeal. On 17 December 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional appeal (no. Up 85/03-12) because the proceedings in question had ended and the alleged victim could seek compensation in civil proceedings. 16. Similarly, in case no. U 148/ , the Administrative Court rejected on 21 January 2003 a complaint concerning the length of the proceedings because the proceedings in question had ended shortly after the complaint had been lodged. On 28 May 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 17. In case no. U 148/ , the Administrative Court dismissed on 21 January 2003 a claim alleging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time that had been lodged on 18 July This decision was upheld on appeal on 28 May The proceedings before two levels of jurisdiction had lasted ten months and ten days. 18. In case no. U 459/ , the Administrative Court held on 7 December 2004, in proceedings that had started on 8 December 2003, that there had been a violation of the right to due process. The proceedings had lasted less than a year before one level of jurisdiction. F. The Code of Obligations If a court is responsible for undue delay in the proceedings and an individual has sustained damage as a result, he or she may claim compensation from the State under the Code of Obligations 2001 (Obligacijski zakonik). The person seeking compensation will thus have to prove, firstly, that there has been a delay in the proceedings, secondly, that damage has occurred, and, thirdly, that there is a causal link between the conduct of the court and the damage sustained. However, the Code does not provide specifically for compensation for nonpecuniary damage in such cases.
22 12 LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA JUDGMENT G. Case-law of the civil courts 20. In a judgment of 22 January 2001 of the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani), the damages awarded amounted to nearly 6,700 euros (EUR), but were reduced on appeal on 16 December 2002 by the Ljubljana Higher Court to less than EUR In a judgment of 18 April 2001 of the Ljubljana District Court, which was upheld on appeal on 12 February 2003 by the Ljubljana Higher Court, a sum of approximately EUR 3,350 was awarded. H. The Judicature Act Section 3(4) of the Judicature Act (Zakon o sodiščih) provides that judges shall determine rights and obligations and criminal charges independently and impartially and without undue delay. 23. Section 38 of the Act provides that, when determining the number of judges to be appointed to a specific court, the Judicial Council (sodni svet) shall have regard to the criteria laid down by the Minister of Justice, the average number of cases dealt with by the court in the preceding three years, any anticipated changes that may affect that number, and the average number of new actions brought in the court in the preceding three years. Under the Act, the Minister of Justice is empowered to vary the criteria in the light of the complexity of the cases and changes in the manner in which they are being processed. 24. Section 72 provides that in the event of a delay in the proceedings any party may lodge a request for supervision (nadzorstvena pritožba) with the president of the court. The president of the court may request the presiding judge to report on progress in the proceedings, and is required to indicate in writing to the presiding judge any irregularities he finds. He may put the case on the priority list or set deadlines for procedural measures. If the delay has been caused by a heavy caseload, he may order the case concerned or other cases to be transferred to another judge. He may also propose measures under the provisions of the Judicial Service Act. 25. If the request for supervision is lodged with the Ministry of Justice or the president of a higher court, they will refer it to the president of the relevant court and may request a report on the measures undertaken to expedite the proceedings. 26. The Minister of Justice or the Judicial Council may request the president of the court to submit a report on all requests for supervision lodged within a certain period and the measures undertaken to resolve the issues. 27. In accordance with section 73, the president of a higher court may, of his own motion or at the request of the Minister of Justice, a disciplinary