FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 45891/06 Franc PREMK 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 23 October 2006,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Franc Premk , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Medvode . He was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej , a lawyer practising in Medvode .

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

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

On 2 June 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in an accident at the workplace.

A hearing, scheduled for 8 January 2004, was postponed on request of the applicant.

On 24 March 2005 the court held the first hearing and appointed an expert.

On 16 May 2005 the court requested the applicant to settle an advance payment for the expert ’ s fee.

On 3 February 2006 the applicant submitted his reasons for not paying requested sum.

The second hearing, scheduled for 6 February 2006, was postponed on request of the applicant.

On 13 May 2006 the expert opinion was submitted to the court.

On 16 May 2006 the court held a hearing.

On 14 September 2006 the court held its final hearing where the parties reached a settlement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this regard.

THE LAW

Further to the notification of the case under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the Government informed the Court that the State Attorney ’ s Office had refused to apply section 25 to the present case, stating that the applicant ’ s right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed. As a result, no settlement proposal was submitted to the applicant.

The Government argued that the applicant contributed to the delays significantly in that he requested two hearings to be postponed and he failed to submit the advance payment for the expert ’ s fee in due time. According to the Government the time attributable to the applicant amounts to at least nine months.

The applicant contested these arguments in a very general manner without challenging the specific arguments of the Government.

The Court observes that the time to be taken in consideration in the present case started on 2 June 2003, the date when the domestic proceedings were instituted, and ended on 14 September 2006, the date when the settlement was reached. The proceedings therefore lasted three years and three months at one level 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII).

Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions of the parties, the Court is persuaded by the Government ’ s arguments and finds that the applicant ’ s contribution to the delays considered in the light of the overall duration of the proceedings leads to the conclusion that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was not 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 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President