TFL Vsebine / Revija Revus

Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je v zadevi Lukenda proti Sloveniji obsodilo državo za kršitev pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku (6. člen) ter kršitev pravice do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva (13. člen). Poleg tega je ugotovilo, da tovrstne kršitve niso zgolj osamljeni primeri, ampak so sistemski problem, ki izhaja iz neprimerne normativne ureditve in neučinkovite prakse. Sodišče je zavrnilo vse ugovore vlade, ki je trdila, da pritožnik ni izčrpal nobenega izmed učinkovitih pravnih sredstev za odpravo kršitev pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku, ki naj bi mu bila v Sloveniji na voljo. Zaključilo je, da so tožba v upravnem sporu, odškodninska pravda, nadzorstvena pritožba in ustavna pritožba neučinkovite do te mere, da niti v teoriji (razen pogojno nadzorstvene pritožbe) niti v praksi ne zagotavljajo odprave ali poprave kršitev. Enako stališče je ESČP zavzelo tudi glede celote vseh razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev. Ti zaključki so v nadaljevanju sodišču služili kot podlaga, da je soglasno ugotovilo kršitev pravice do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva (13. člen). Glede na kriterije, ki jih je v preteklosti postavilo, pa je soglasno ugotovilo tudi, da postopek, ki je na dveh instancah trajal pet let, tri mesece in devet dni, pomeni kršitev 6. člena Konvencije. V sklepnem delu sodbe je sodišče pritožniku prisodilo pravično zadoščenje, nato pa Sloveniji »svetovalo«, naj sprejme ustrezne splošne in posamične ukrepe, s katerimi bi lahko dosegla, da se kršitve ne bi več ponavljale oziroma da bi jih, če bi do kršitve vseeno prišlo, lahko učinkovito sankcionirala na nacionalni ravni.

European Court of Human rights held in case Lukenda v. Slovenia that there had been a violation of the Article 6 which guarantees the right to the hearing within a reasonable time and also that there had been a violation of the Article 13 which guarantees the right to an effective remedy for an alleged breach of the requirements under the Article 6. Furthermore, the Court found that the violation of the applicant’s right was not an isolated incident, but a systemic problem that has originated in the malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice. All Government’s preliminary objections claiming nonexhaustion of adequate and effective domestic remedies were dismissed by the Court. Upon the Court’s opinion the domestic remedies separately (namely action in the administrative courts, tort claim, request for supervision and constitutional appeal) or the aggregate cannot amount to an effective legal remedy. As the Government failed to establish the effectiveness of domestic remedies, the Court held unanimously, that there had been a violation of the Article 13. Moreover, in the Court’s view, the overall length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement, so therefore a breach of the Article 6 was established. In conclusion, the Court did not only award just satisfaction to the applicant, but also “suggested” Slovenia to adopt appropriate general and individual measures in order to put an end to the violation found by the Court or to redress as far as possible its effects.