FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 15829/05 and 18618/06
by Karel VOGRINČIČ and Others
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
	Ganna Yudkivska, President,
	Boštjan M. Zupančič,
	Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposals made to the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are all Slovenian nationals living in Slovenia.
Also the applicant Mr Karel Vogrinčič was a Slovenian national living in Slovenia. He was represented before the Court by Ms T. Koračin-Bohar, a lawyer practicing in Murska Sobota. Mr Karel Vogrinčič died on 20 November 2007, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 1 June 2009 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s heir Ms Ana Kuhar wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. Like the applicant, also his heir, who is a Slovenian national and lives in Slovenia, was represented before the Court by Ms T. Koračin-Bohar, a lawyer practicing in Murska Sobota.
The applicants Mr Jože Terglav, Mr Branko Terglav and Mr Peter Pesjak were not represented before the Court.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The applicants were parties to domestic proceedings which terminated before 1 January 2007.
For details concerning each particular case see the attached annex.
B.  Relevant domestic law
For the relevant domestic law see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. They also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).
In addition, some applicants had also other complaints. The applicant Mr Karel Vogrinčič complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the amount of his salary of a state official had not been properly calculated and that the due amounts were eventually reimbursed to him in state bonds, which over the years lost much of their value due to inflation in the country. He did not lodge a constitutional appeal at the Constitutional Court with respect to these complaints.
The applicants Mr Jože Terglav, Mr Branko Terglav and Mr Peter Pesjak complained that they were prevented from using the inherited property until the inheritance proceedings were terminated, thereby invoking in substance Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
A.  Legal standing of Ms Ana Kuhar before the Court
The Court must first examine whether Ms Ana Kuhar has legal standing to pursue the application originally lodged by the applicant Mr Karel Vogrinčič, who died on 20 November 2007, in the course of the proceedings before the Court.
On 1 June 2009 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s late partner and heir Ms Ana Kuhar wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. To this end, she enclosed the documents certifying that Ms Ana Kuhar was found to be the applicant’s heir by the Murska Sobota Local Court, as well as the new power of attorney. After these documents were transmitted to the Government, they offered a friendly settlement to Ms Ana Kuhar.
In various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008, Mlakar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 30946/02, 12 December 2006 and Trnovšek v. Slovenia (dec.), 20844/03, 1 June 2010). The Court would also point out that the applicant’s legal successor does not need to be himself the victim of the alleged violation of a human right, but that he may continue the application before the Court in the applicant’s stead (see, e.g., Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000).
Regard being had to the fact that Ms Ana Kuhar was confirmed under national law as the applicant’s heir, the Court considers that she has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application. The Court accordingly continues to examine the application at the request of Ms Ana Kuhar.
B.  Complaints about the length of the proceedings under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
In the present cases, the Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the applications under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of the Court, all the applicants received the State Attorney’s Office’s settlement proposals under section 25 of the 2006 Act acknowledging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and offering redress for non-pecuniary damage (see the attached annex). It further notes that the applicants have since been in a position either to negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that should be unsuccessful, to lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). The latter has been considered by the Court to constitute appropriate means of redressing a breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 that has already occurred (see Pohlen v Slovenia (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 40-43, 3 June 2008).
The Court reiterates Article 37 of the Convention, which in the relevant part reads as follows:
“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
...
(c)  for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the applications in the part concerning the complaints about undue length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 and lack of effective remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention and that they should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c).
C.  Remaining complaints
As far as the complaints of Mr Karel Vogrinčič concerning his salary under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned, the Court observes that he did not exhaust all the domestic remedies he had at his disposal with respect to this complaint. The Court therefore considers that his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must be considered inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
As far as the complaints of Mr Jože Terglav, Mr Branko Terglav and Mr Peter Pesjak concerning their heritage under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned, the Court finds that after the Government acknowledged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it is not necessary to examine separately whether, in the present case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on this length basis (see, mutatis mutandis, Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23). The Court recalls that the eventual negative repercussions on an applicant’s property rights caused by the excessive length of proceedings may be analysed as a consequence of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and taken into account for the award of just satisfaction under the latter provision (see, for example, Varipati v. Greece, judgment of 26 October 1999, no. 38459/97 § 32). The Court therefore considers that also with respect to these complaints the applicants have been in position either to negotiate a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office or, if that was unsuccessful, to lodge a “claim for just satisfaction” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). It follows that their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must be considered inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in the part concerning complaints about the length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 and the lack of efficient remedies in this regard under Article 13 of the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the applications.
	Stephen Phillips	Ganna Yudkivska	Deputy Registrar	President

Annex

No.	Application No.	Applicant’s Name	Year of Birth	Address	Date of Introduction	Date of settlement proposal or agreement signed by the State Attorney	
1.	15829/05	Karel VOGRINČIČ
Ana KUHAR (continuing the application in the applicant’s stead)
	1953

1952	Murska Sobota	18/04/2005	10/12/2010	
2.	18618/06	Jože TERGLAV
Branko TERGLAV

Peter PESJAK	1953

1955

1934	Kropa

Kranj

Kranj	12/04/2006	29/07/2009