C ommunicated on 7 March 2013

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 52195/12 Vida NOVAK against Slovenia lodged on 8 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Vida Novak, is a Slov enian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Maribor. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Kralj , a lawyer practising in Maribor .

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Main proceedings

On 17 December 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Maribor District Court. After the hearings scheduled for 28 May 2002, 3 March 2004 and 17 May 2005 were all postponed, the Maribor District Court issued an order staying the proceedings. Both parties appealed. By May 2005 the applicant had on five occasions requested that a hearing be scheduled.

On 5 July 2005 the Maribor Higher Court annulled the decision to stay the proceedings and remitted the case back to Maribor District Court.

Between August 2005 and April 2006 the applicant on six occasions requested the district court to schedule a hearing.

On 25 August 2006 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal.

On 16 October 2006 the president of the Maribor District Court ordered that the case be given priority.

The applicant asked on further four occasions for a hearing. After hearings scheduled for 28 November 2006 and 7 June 2007 were postponed, the court held a hearing on 19 June 2007. On the latter date the court issued its decision. The applicant appealed.

On 2 April 2008 the Maribor Higher Court granted the appeal and remitted the case back to the District Court.

On 14 November 2008 the Maribor District Court held a hearing and issued its decision. The decision was served upon the applicant on 4 May 2009. The applicant appealed.

On 26 August 2009 the Maribor Higher Court issued its decision which was served upon the applicant on 21 September 2009.

2. Proceedings concerning compensation for the undue length of proceedings

On 10 December 2009 the applicant lodged a claim for just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages sustained as a consequence of the undue length of proceedings with the State Attorney ’ s office. The applicant was offered EUR 450 by way of compensation.

On 17 March 2010 the applicant instituted proceedings against the State seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages sustained as a consequence of the undue length of proceedings claiming EUR 2,300 of compensation.

On 11 May 2010 the Celje District Court upheld the applicant ’ s claim in part and awarded her EUR 450 for non-pecuniary damages and EUR 55 for costs of representation. She appealed.

On 2 February 2011 the Celje Higher Court upheld her appeal and increased the amount of damages to EUR 650 and the amount of costs for representation to EUR 72. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal and a motion for constitutional review of provisions on Attorney Fee Tariff Act limiting the amount of reimbursed costs of legal representation in the proceedings concerning compensation for the undue length of proceedings to 10 % of the awarded compensation.

On 6 June 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected both the applicant ’ s appeal and motion for review of constitutionality.

B. Relevant domestic law

For relevant domestic law see Grzinčič v. Slovenia , no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted unduly long and that she did not receive adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage. She further complains that in general the domestic courts are awarding pitiful compensation for undue delays and that the just-satisfaction claim under the 2006 Act is not an effective remedy, since the ceiling for compensation for non-pecuniary damage is set at EUR 5,000, which according to her is against the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. Finally, she complains under Article 13 that the limitations regarding the reimbursement of costs of legal representation in proceedings concerning compensation for the undue length of proceedings limit access to such proceedings to the extent that the remedies provided for by the 2006 Act become inefficient.

QUESTION

Did the applicant have at h er disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of proceedings , as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, does the regime for acknowledge ment and reimbursement of procedural costs in respect of the proceedings under the 2006 Act , notably the costs of legal representation , comply with the standards established by the case-law of the Court (see, in particular, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 201, 210, ECHR 2006 ‑ V)?