FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 39380/10 Elda Silvana BOSICH against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 December 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ann Power-Forde , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Helena Jäderblom , judges , and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 2010,

Having regard to the comments submitted by parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Elda Silvana Bosich , is an Australian national, who was born in 1932 and lives in Mortdale . She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Dokič , a lawyer practising in Piran .

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are 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.

In 1962 the applicant ’ s father signed a contract of donation whereby he gave his property to the Piran Municipality .

On 26 August 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Piran Municipality and the Republic of Slovenia seeking the annulment of the contract and the restoration to its previous state of the Land Register, namely the registration of the land title in the applicant ’ s name.

On 4 October 2004 the Piran District Court issued a judgment rejecting the applicant ’ s request. The applicant appealed.

On 21 February 2006 the Koper Higher Court rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 17 December 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.

On 19 February 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

For relevant domestic law see the Court ’ s judgments Tomažič v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007 ).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. The applicant also complained under Article 6 about the unfairness and arbitrariness of the proceedings. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 she further complained that the domestic courts ’ decisions amounted to a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. In particular, she complained that the contract of donation was unlawful, since it was not signed, arguing that her father would never give away his property. Lastly, she requested the re-opening of the domestic proceedings.

THE LAW

1. Complaints under Articles 6 (length of proceedings) and 13 of the Convention

Further to the communication of the case under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the Government argued that the applicant ’ s right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed and the application should be rejected as unsubstantiated. The applicant contested this argument.

The Court observes that the time to be taken in consideration started on 26 August 2002, when the proceedings were instituted, and ended on 19 February 2010, the date when the Constitutional Court ’ s decision was issued. The proceedings therefore lasted seven years and six months at four levels of jurisdiction.

The Court recalls that the “reasonable” length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities , Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court finds that the only period that can be attributable to the applicant is the one month delay when she was requested to modify the appeal on points of law.

As to the conduct of the domestic courts the Court observes that it did not take any of the instances more than three years to deliver their decision. Having regard to the latter and the Court ’ s case-law (see for example L.Z. v. Slovakia , no. 27753/06, 27 September 2011; and Lyszczyna v. Germany , no. 34863/04, 4 January 2008) the Court considers that regardless of some delays in the proceedings the overall length of seven years and five months at four levels of jurisdiction did not exceed what could be considered reasonable.

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 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 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. Therefore, this claim does not reveal any appearance of violation of this provision.

Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. Other complaints

Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention . It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President