FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 25168/06 Karlo Drago NOVAK against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 May 2006,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Karlo Drago Novak, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Logatec .

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

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

On 30 March 2001 an insurance company instituted proceedings against the applicant before the Ljubljana District Court for the payment of d amages in the amount of EUR 30, 93.

On 4 April 2001 the court issued a payment order.

Following several unsuccessful attempts to serve the payment order on the applicant the court requested the plaintiff to provide exact details of the applicant. The payment order was finally served on the applicant on 5 March 2002 at his workplace.

On 7 March 2002 the applicant lodged an objection against the payment order and requested to be exempted from paying court fees.

On 26 March 2002 the first-instance court requested the applicant to modify his request for exemption from court fees.

On 12 June 2002 the applicant ’ s request regarding court fees was rejected and again the court had difficulties with the service of the decision. The applicant lodged an appeal complaining that the decision was issued in the wrong name. On 22 August 2002 the court issued a corrigendum to the decision and asked the applicant whether he still wished to appeal. The applicant informed the court that he intended to pursue with the appeal.

On 12 November 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal.

On 9 March 2004 the applicant lodged a preliminary submission.

The first hearing was scheduled for 13 October 2005 but the hearing did not take place, since the summons could not be served on the applicant.

The first hearing was held on 9 November 2005 and the following one on 12 January 2006.

On 22 February 2006 the court rendered a judgment annulling the payment order and ordered the plaintiff to pay the court fees. The court also issued a decision imposing a fine on the applicant of EUR 417 for contempt of court, since the applicant had been constantly sending letters to the court with abusive language towards the court, the judge and the plaintiff. The applicant appealed against the decision and against the judgment. He also lodged a request for an exemption from court fees in the appeal proceedings.

On 30 March 2006 the appeal against the judgment was rejected as lodged out of time. The applicant appealed. On the same day the court requested the applicant to modify the request for an exemption from court fees by submitting the relevant documents. The applicant failed to do so.

On 11 May 2006 the court rejected the applicant ’ s request for an exemption from court fees.

On 15 November 2006 the appeal court issued a decision on the appeals. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.

On 18 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected his appeal as not allowed since it concerned a minor dispute.

COMPLAINTS

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

The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness and arbitrariness of the proceedings. According to him the domestic courts were deliberately protracting the proceedings and did not take into account any of the evidence he had submitted.

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 did not comment on the matter.

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).

The Court observes that the proceedings were instituted on 30 March 2001. However, due to difficulties concerning the service of the payment order the applicant became aware of the proceedings a year later. It can therefore be considered that the time to be taken in consideration in the present case started on 5 March 2002, when the payment order was served on the applicant, and ended on 18 December 2007 , the date when the Constitutional Court ’ s decision was issued. The proceedings therefore lasted five years and eight months at three levels of jurisdiction.

The Court notes at the outset that the present case concerned a small claims procedure in the amount of EUR 30, and cannot be considered as complex.

As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court finds that he did contribute quite substantially to the length of the proceedings by lodging appeals that were futile ( inter alia by lodging an appeal against the first-instance judgment deciding in his favour), by not submitting the requested documents required for the exemption of court fees, by trying to avoid the serving of documents and burdening the court with letters containing abusive language. However, the initial delay of one year can neither be attributable to the State nor to the applicant but to the plaintiff, who failed to submit the correct address of the applicant.

The Court further observes that although it took the first-instance court four years to deliver its judgment, it has to be noted that the case was in the meanwhile also pending before the second-instance court, since the applicant insisted to pursue with his appeal even though the issue had been resolved with the corrigendum of the decision on exemption of court fees. Assessing the relevant facts as a whole, the Court does not find that the domestic courts failed to act with due diligence in handling the case.

Having regard to all the material submitted to it and having regard to the Court ’ s case-law on the subject ( see for example Kucík v. Slovakia, no. 28011/05, 2 November 2010 and Hornak v. Slovakia, no. 43527/04, 24 November 2009 ) the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings can still be considered as 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