Information Note on the Court’s case-law 50

February 2003

Å ilc v. Slovenia (dec.) - 45936/99

Decision 13.2.2003 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of proceedings arising out of refusal to admit applicant to Bar Association: admissible

(i) The applicant holds a degree in law and has passed the national bar exams. He applied to the Bar Association to become a licensed attorney in December 1997, providing further details in May 1998. In the absence of a decision on his application, he filed an administrative action before the Administrative Court in July 1998. The Bar Association rejected his application in December 199 8 on the ground that his past behaviour indicated he was not sufficiently trustworthy to enter the profession. The Administrative Court quashed the Bar Association’s decision in June 1999. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal in February 2001. The Bar Association failed to comply with this ruling within the one-month  time limit. In May 2001, the Constitutional Court ruled that the relevant part of the Bar Association’s Statute was unconstitutional. The applicant filed another action with the Administrative Court in September 2001 over the Bar Association’s non-compliance. In December 2001, the Bar Association again rejected the applicant’s application. Proceedings before the Administrative Court are still pending.

(ii) The app licant was also involved in several sets of proceedings before the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court over the period 1994-2001 concerning his right of access to his daughter, born in 1989. In particular, the applicant wis hed to have more frequent contact with his daughter than the social services allowed. He further complained that the child’s mother did not observe the existing arrangements, which were set out in a decision of the social services in 1996. This matter was already the subject of a complaint under the Convention, declared inadmissible by the Commission in 1998.

(iii) The applicant further indicates that criminal proceedings were instituted against him in May 1995, leading to the charge, in 1997, of having imp ersonated the public prosecutor over the telephone in 1995. He was convicted on this count by the District Court in January 1999. The Higher Court quashed the conviction in May 1999 on the ground that the charges were time-barred.

(i) Admissible under Art icle 6 § 1, regarding the length of proceedings relating to his application to become a licensed attorney, and Article 13 concerning the effectiveness of available remedies.

(ii) Inadmissible under Article 8 in relation to the enforcement of the applicant’s right of access to his daughter. Since the Commission examined his case in 1998, the applicant had only made one attempt to enforce the 1996 decision, leading to an enforcement order in 1999 . The applicant could have filed a constitutional appeal or a new request for enforcement but did not do so. Moreover, it was evident that his daughter refused to spend weekends alone with him:  manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1(as t o the length of the proceedings) and under Article 13, in view of the due diligence of the social authorities and the applicant’s failure to make use of existing remedies.

Inadmissible under Article 8 and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7: The applicant’s compla int relating to the 1996 decision of the social services was substantially the same as that already examined by the Commission in 1998. Furthermore, domestic remedies had not been exhausted, since proceedings on this issue were still pending before the Sup reme Court.

(iii) Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of the criminal proceedings: There was no indication that the applicant’s situation was substantially affected before charges were brought in 1997. The proceedings therefore lasted two years and four months, which did not, in the circumstances, exceed the requirement of a reasonable time: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 regarding the fairness of the proceedings, and under Article 13: As the charges against the applicant were dismissed on appeal, he was no longer a victim.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes