DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE POWER-FORDE

I cannot agree with the majority that there was a violati on of Articles 6 in this case. In my dissenting opinion in Barišič v. Slovenia , I indicated that I do not agree with this Court ’ s “broad brush” approach to length of proceedings claims and I set out the reasons f or my position in this regard. The same reasoning applies with equal force to the instant case.

Although the proceedings commenced in October 1998 and two hearings were held in June and July 2002, the draft records no details as to when the defendant company filed its defence or what, if any, pre-trial steps were taken. Furthermore, the applicant herself requested a postponement of a trial hearing for a period of six months in October 2002. When the matter was relisted once again the Court suspended the proceedings because neither of the parties appeared. Hearings were held in 2005 and 2006 and the applicant ’ s request was ultimately rejected. Within six months, the applicant ’ s appeal had been heard and that, too, was rejected. Within a further four months the Supreme Court heard and rejected her second appeal.

For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Barišič v. Slovenia and absent a detailed consideration of what, in fact, transpired at national level and in the light of such facts as can be ascertained from the judgment, I cannot agree that there has been any violation of the Convention of the part of the Respondent State.

[1] Rectified on 31 July 2013 : the amount in words has been corrected to correspond to the numeric amount “ two thousand three hundred euros”.