FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 1683/07 Iztok DORIČ and others against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Angelika Nußberger, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Helena Jäderblom, judges and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr D. Teržan, a lawyer practising in Celje.

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants made a loan to a company E., which the company never returned. On 4 July 1995 each applicant separately instituted proceedings against the company E. before the Celje Local Court.

On 6 November 1997 the Celje Local Court decided to join the claims of all three applicants.

On 14 April 1998 the court delivered a judgment, ordering the company E. to repay the debt.

On 8 September 1999 the Celje Higher Court quashed the judgment of 14 April 1998 and returned the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.

On 17 October 2000 the first-instance court again decided in the applicants ’ favour and ordered the company E. to repay the debt. The company E. lodged an appeal.

On 22 December 2000 the District Court Celje received a request for institution of bankruptcy proceedings against company E.

On 12 March 2001, bankruptcy proceedings were in stituted against company E. before the Celje District Court.

On 21 May 2001 civil proceedings were stayed, awaiting the final resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings.

On 6 June 2001 the bankruptcy proceedings were terminated by the Celje District Court, which established that the company did not have any assets from which the company ’ s creditors could be paid. The claims of the applicants were not recognized in the bankruptcy proceedings since the judgment of 17 October 2000 was not yet final.

On 10 July 2001 the decision on termination of the bankruptcy proceedings became final.

On 11 July 2001 the company E. was deleted from the Register of companies.

On 9 May 2003 the Celje Local Court ordered that information on the final resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings be verified.

On 19 May 2003 the Celje Local Court received the final decision in the bankruptcy proceedings.

On 27 May 2003 the Celje Local Court invited the applicants to submit their position regarding the continuation of the proceedings.

On 10 July 2003, after the applicants failed to respond, the Celje Local Court again urged them to submit their position regarding the continuation of the proceedings.

On 17 May 2004 the applicants responded and modified their claim by substituting the defendant company E. with J. J., the company ’ s majority shareholder.

On 26 May 2004 the Celje Local Court allowed the modification of the claim and issued a decision on continuation of the proceedings against the new defendant J.J. J.J. appealed.

On 14 December 2005 the Celje Higher Court granted the appeal and annulled the contested decision.

On 15 April 2008 the Celje Local Court adopted a decision not to allow the modification of the applicants ’ claim s and terminated the civil proceedings, after having established that the bankruptcy proceedings were terminated, that the company as one of the parties to the civil proceedings had ceased to exist and that there was no legal successor to it that would take over the company ’ s debts.

On 7 May 2008 the decision was served on the applicants.

The applicants did not lodge any remedies against excessive length of the proceedings under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).

B. Relevant domestic law

For a more detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law see Grzinčič v. Slovenia , no. 26867/02, §§ 38 - 48 , 3 May 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair trial had been infringed by the excessive length of the proceedings. In substance, they also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the determination of the applicants ’ civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention began in the contentious proceedings and continued in the bankruptcy proceedings (see Sukobljević v. Croatia , no. 5129/03, § 37, 2 November 2006).

As regards the contentious proceedings, the Court notes that these were terminated on 7 May 2008 , when the decision of the first instance court was served on the applicants, which is more than three months after the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay became operational. The applicants therefore had at their disposal domestic remedies, which they failed to exhaust.

Having regards to the Court ’ s well-established case-law (see Grzinčič v. Slovenia, cited above, § 110 and Nezirovič v. Slovenia, no . 16400/06, (dec.), §§ 27-42, 18 November 2008) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the contentious proceedings should be rejected under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention for being manifestly ill-founded.

As regards the reasonableness of the length of the bankruptcy proceedings, it is noted that these proceedings lasted seven months (from 22 December 2000 to 10 July 2001), which cannot be considered excessive. The Court therefore finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies before the domestic courts, the Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the bankruptcy proceedings is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim that his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar President

Appendix