FIRST SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 39914/98 by Ljuben TRIČKOVIĆ against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ) sitting on 9 November 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs E. Palm, President , Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr R. Türmen, Mr T. Panţîru,

Mr C. Bîrsan, Mr J. Casadevall, judges ,

and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 11 November 1997 by Ljuben Tričković against Slovenia and registered on 17 February 1998 under file no. 39914/98;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 14 August 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 16 September 1998 and 1 December 1998;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovenian national, born in 1944 and living in Ljubljana . He is disabled.

The applicant is represented before the Court by the Helsinki Monitor of Slovenia.

The proceedings in question in the present case concern the applicant's claim for an advance on payment of his military pension.

The following is a summary of the proceedings:

On 5 June 1992 the applicant applied for an advance on payment of his military pension under the Advance on Payment of Military Pensions Decree (Official Gazette no. 4/92 of 25 January 1992).

On 9 July 1992 the Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund ( Skupnost pokojninskega in invalidskega zavarovanja ) found that the applicant had no right to advance payments. On 3 November 1992 the Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant sought a judicial review of these decisions.

On 2 March 1993 the Labour and Social Court in Ljubljana ( Sodiš č e združenega dela pokojninskega in invalidskega zavarovanja Slovenije ) dismissed the applicant's action. On 7 July 1994 the Higher Labour and Social Court ( Višje delovno in socialno sodišče ) in Ljubljana upheld the lower court's decision. The second instance decision was served on 30 July 1994.

On 29 August 1994 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodiš č e ) alleging breaches of his constitutional rights in the aforesaid proceedings.

In May 1995 the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to complete his constitutional complaint. The applicant complied with the request on 6 June 1995.

On 20 December 1995 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's constitutional complaint admissible.

On 17 April 1997 the Constitutional Court , by a majority, rejected the constitutional complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The decision was served on 17 May 1997.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted unreasonably long.

PROCEDURE

On 27 May 1998 the Commission decided to give notice of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court to the respondent Government and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.

The Government submitted their observations on 14 August 1998 to which the applicant replied on 16 September 1998 and 1 December 1998.

On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.

On 15 June 1999 the President of the First Section exempted Mr B. Zupan čič, the judge elected in respect of Slovenia , from sitting after his withdrawal from the case. The President of the First Section further invited the respondent Government to inform the Court before 19 July 1999 whether they wished to appoint to sit as judge another elected judge or any other person as an ad hoc judge. The Government submitted no reply. The Chamber dealing with the case was therefore completed by Mr J. Casadevall , the first substitute judge.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted unreasonably long. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ...              hearing within a reasonable time by a[n] ... tribunal...”

The Court notes that the proceedings complained of concerned the applicant's claim for an advance on payment of his military pension. It is not disputed between the parties that they concerned the determination of the applicant's “civil rights” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the Court finds no reason for reaching a different conclusion.

The Court recalls that Slovenia ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual petition on 28 June 1994. As the Convention only governs facts which are subsequent to its entry into force with respect to the Contracting Party concerned, the Court cannot consider the period which is prior to the aforesaid date.

The proceedings complained of started on 29 August 1994 when the applicant lodged the constitutional complaint. They ended by the delivery of the Constitutional Court 's decision of 17 April 1997. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration lasted two years, seven months and nineteen days.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Government refute the allegation and submit that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in that his original constitutional complaint was incomplete. They further contend that the applicant's case was particularly complex and that the Constitutional Court had a heavy workload during the relevant period.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant 's conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O'Boyle Elisabeth Palm Registrar President