Communicated on 19 January 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 39216/13 Anton KASTELIC against Slovenia lodged on 11 June 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anton Kastelic , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Velike Lašče . He is represented before the Court by Mr M Kunič , a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a hunter, member of a hunting association and in possession of a valid licence for carrying arms.

1. The minor offences proceedings and the seizure of the applicant ’ s rifles

On 25 August 1997 the Ljubljana- Vič Police Station obtained information that on 12 August 1997 the applicant had been shooting at wild birds in his courtyard.

On 27 August 1997 the police lodged a request for the institution of proceedings against the applicant in respect of the minor offence of hunting songbirds foreseen in Section 11 of the Act on Criminal Offences against Public Order and Peace. It further requested the court to issue a search warrant for the applicant ’ s premises.

On the same day the Ljubljana District Court issued a search warrant for the applicant ’ s home on the basis of police suspicion that he might have been shooting at wild birds in his courtyard.

On 29 August 1997 the police conducted the search of the applicant ’ s house and seized two hunting rifles – one of the type Ceska zbrojovka Bock and the other one of Crvena zastava .

On 4 September 1997 the police lodged a second request for the institution of minor offence proceedings against the applicant in respect of the minor offence of hunting songbirds and the minor offence of inappropriate storage of firearms and munit ion foreseen in Sections 56 and 57 of the Firearms Act.

On 12 November 1997 the Ljubljana Minor Offences Judge in the first set of minor offences proceedings dismissed the charges against the applicant in respect of the request of 27 August 1997.

On 12 February 1998 the Ljubljana Minor Offences Judge found the applicant guilty of having committed the offences indicated in the request of 4 September 1997 and ordered the confiscation of the two rifles seized on 29 August 1997. The applicant appealed.

On 29 November 2001 the Senate for Minor Offences decided to discontinue the minor offences proceedings against the applicant since the prosecution had in the meantime become time-barred. It decided that the Crvena zastava rifle could be returned to the applicant while it remitted the decision on the confiscation of the Ceska zbrojovka Bock rifle back to the first instance court.

On 26 February 2002 the applicant was returned the Crvena zastava rifle.

On 20 April 2004 the Ljubljana Minor Offences Judge decided to return the applicant also the Ceska zbrojovka Bock rifle.

On 15 September 2004 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit informed the applicant that he could retrieve his rifle.

On 28 September 2004 the applicant went to the Ljubljana Administrative Unit to retrieve his rifle. He was accompanied by I.A., a firearms expert, who established that the rifle was in a bad condition which was probably due to the fact that it had not been cleaned while in storage. The applicant therefore refused to take it back.

2. The civil proceedings

On 17 November 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for the compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages he had sustained due to the seizure of the rifles and its duration which was a result of the duration of the minor offences proceedings with the State Attorney ’ s Office. He claimed 1,500,000 tolars (SIT, approximately 6,290 euros (EUR)) on account of non ‑ pecuniary damage and SIT 140,000 (approximately 585 EUR) for pecuniary damage.

On 12 January 2005 the State Attorney ’ s Office informed the applicant that they would not grant his claim.

On 17 March 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State before the Ljubljana Local Court. He claimed SIT 1,500,000 on account of non-pecuniary and SIT 120,000 (approximately 500 EUR) on account of pecuniary damages. He alleged inter alia that the fact that he was not able to go hunting during such a long period significantly affected his well-being. He argued that hunting had represented a method of relaxation for him, especially after his early retirement due to serious health issues and that he suffered also because of being mocked by his fellow members of the hunting association and his neighbours as a result of the seizure of his rifles.

The case had later been referred to the Kamnik Local Court which held hearings on 24 February, 21 April, 19 May 2009 and 8 January 2010. On the latter date the court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim holding that it had been lodged out of the three-year time-limit. The local court held that the applicant could have known about the damages already when he had been served the decisions in the minor offences proceedings issued on 12 November 1997, 12 February 1998 and 29 November 2001 respectively and not only when he had been served the decision of 20 April 2004 on the return of his second rifle. The local court further held that the applicant had also failed to establish that the duration of the proceedings had been a consequence of an unlawful conduct of the minor offences judge and that therefore the elements of the liability of the State could not have been established in any case. In addition, the applicant had also failed to prove that the rifle had been in a better condition when seized. The applicant appealed.

On 6 October 2010 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The applicant lodged a motion for leave to file an appeal on points of law.

On 14 April 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s motion. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.

On 7 December 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint. The decision was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 13 December 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Minor Offences Act

According to Section 168 of the Minor Offences Act in force at the material time the objects seized before the issuing of a decision in the minor offences proceedings should be returned to their owner if the proceedings had been discontinued or if there had been no basis for their seizure, unless their seizure would still be justified for the reasons of the general safety.

2. The 1991 Constitution

Article 26 of the Constitution read as follows:

“Everyone shall have the right to compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful acts of a person or body when performing a function or engaging in an activity on behalf of a State or local authority or as a holder of public office. ...”

3. Code of obligations

Article 148 of the Code of Obligations provides that a legal person is liable for the damage inflicted on a third party by one of its subsidiary bodies in the exercise of its functions or in connection therewith. This provision also applies to the State ’ s liability for damage.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the seizure of his rifles in the minor offences proceedings, the duration of the seizure and the rejection of his claim for compensation amounted to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the minor offences proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the seizure of the applicant ’ s rifles a measure necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

2. In particular, having regard to the duration of the seizure, to the absence of any criminal conviction against the applicant and to the dismissal of his claim for compensation, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

3. Was the length of the minor offences proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?