003-4697033-5700226

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 070 (2014) 12.03.2014 Question of pecuniary damage decided in Grand Chamber judgment concerning the issue of "erased" people in Slovenia In today's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Kuri and Others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights decided the question of pecuniary damage. It held, unanimously, that the Slovenian Government was to pay the six applicants whose rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated amounts between 29,400 and 72,770 euros (EUR) each. The applicants belong to a group of persons known as the "erased", who on 26 February 1992 lost their status as permanent residents following Slovenia's declaration of independence in 1991. In its Grand Chamber judgment on the merits of 26 June 2012, the Court had found that there had been violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private or family life or both); of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8; and, of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure2, holding that the Government should, within one year, set up a compensation scheme for the "erased" in Slovenia. Principal facts and complaints There were eight applicants in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber. In its judgment of 26 June 2012, the Court, by a majority, declared the application inadmissible in respect of two applicants for not having exhausted the remedies at national level. The remaining six applicants are: Mustafa Kuri, a stateless person; Ana Mezga, a Croatian national; Tripun Ristanovi, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Ali Berisha and Zoran Mini, Serbian nationals according to the Slovenian Government; and Ilfan Sadik Ademi, now a citizen of "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Before Slovenia gained independence on 25 June 1991, the applicants were nationals of both the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("the SFRY") and of one of its constituent republics other than Slovenia. As nationals of the SFRY they had acquired the status of permanent residents in Slovenia. After the enactment of the independence legislation on 25 June 1991, the applicants did not apply for Slovenian citizenship before the deadline of 25 December 1991. On 26 February 1992 their names were removed from the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents. The applicants contended that their "erasure" had serious and enduring consequences. In particular, their papers were taken away from them; some were evicted from their apartments, could not work or travel, lost their personal possessions, and lived for years in poor conditions with serious consequences for their health. The number of former SFRY citizens who lost their permanent residence status in Slovenia in 1992 amounted to 25,671. Some of the "erased" voluntarily left Slovenia, some were deported; others were granted residence permits following two leading decisions of the Constitutional Court of 1999 1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution 2 This procedure has been used by the Court in recent years to deal with large groups of identical cases arising out of the same structural problem. See Factsheet on Pilot judgments. and 2003 � which found the relevant provisions regulating the status of aliens unconstitutional � and more than 7,000 acquired Slovenian citizenship. Following the Constitutional Court's decisions, an amended Legal Status Act was adopted and entered into force on 24 July 2010. During the course of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the six applicants were granted permanent resident permits. In July 2011 the Slovenian Government submitted to the Court some 30 final judgments delivered in compensation proceedings brought by the "erased". All the compensation claims had been dismissed, mostly for failure to comply with the prescribed time-limits. Before the European Court of Human Rights, the applicants complained in particular under Article 8 that they had been arbitrarily deprived of their legal status as permanent residents. In its Grand Chamber judgment of 26 June 2012, the Court found, unanimously, that there had been violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private or family life or both); of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8; and, of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court noted in particular that the applicants had been deprived of the legal status that had previously given them access to a wide range of rights � including entitlement to social allowance, health insurance and pension rights, and renewals of identity documents and driving licences � and opportunities, for instance in the sphere of employment. The Court considered that the regularisation of the residence status of former SFRY citizens was a necessary step which Slovenia should have taken in order to ensure that failure to obtain Slovenian citizenship would not disproportionately affect the rights of the "erased" under Article 8, as demonstrated by the long-lasting problems encountered by the applicants in obtaining valid residence permits. The Court concluded that, despite the passing of the amended Legal Status Act, the Slovenian authorities had failed to remedy comprehensively and with the requisite promptness the grave consequences for the applicants of the "erasure" of their names from the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents. The Court also decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure, holding that the Government should, within one year, set up a compensation scheme for the "erased" in Slovenia. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 July 2006. In its Chamber judgment of 13 July 2010, the Court found that the Slovenian authorities had failed to comply with the Constitutional Court decisions concerning the "erased" people. It held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. On 21 February 2011 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber3 on request of the Slovenian Government. A Grand Chamber hearing was held on 6 July 2011 and the Grand Chamber judgment on the merits was delivered on 26 June 2012. In that judgment, the Court held that Slovenia was to pay the six applicants 20,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses. It reserved the question of pecuniary damage for decision at a later date and invited the parties to submit their observations on the matter and to notify the court of any agreement that they might 3 Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. reach. Noting that the parties had not reached a friendly settlement by 24 June 2013, the date which had been set, following an extension, as a time-limit for such a settlement, the Court decided that it would adjudicate the outstanding questions of pecuniary damage. Judgment on the question of pecuniary damage was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President, Jean-Paul Costa (France), Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), Fran�oise Tulkens (Belgium), Guido Raimondi (Italy), Nina Vaji (Croatia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lef�vre (Monaco), Bostjan M. Zupancic (Slovenia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), P�ivi Hirvel� (Finland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Luis L�pez Guerra (Spain), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), Nebojsa Vucini (Montenegro), Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), Angelika Nu�berger (Germany), and also Michael O'Boyle, Deputy Registrar. Decision of the Court Just satisfaction (Article 41): pecuniary damage The applicants claimed compensation for pecuniary damage under different heads for the whole period from the "erasure" on 26 February 1992 until the date when they had acquired permanent residence permits: loss of past income in respect of social, housing, spouse and children allowances and loss of future income in respect of pension rights. The Government stated that the situations of the individual applicants differed greatly and that certain of them would potentially be entitled to compensation on the basis of different social allowances and/or child benefits. Nevertheless, the causal link between the alleged damage and the violation found was difficult to prove. In the Court's view, it was clear that the loss of legal status as such resulting from the "erasure" entailed significant material consequences for all the applicants, including the loss of access to a wide range of social and political rights and legal benefits, such as identity documents, driving licences, health insurance and education, as well as the loss of job and other opportunities, until they were granted permanent residence permits. It agreed with the assumption made by both the applicants and the Government that a precise calculation of the pecuniary losses suffered by the applicants was not possible. Having regard to the applicants' claims in respect of social allowance, which were not in principle contested by the Government, the Court found that all six applicants should receive compensation in respect of the loss of social allowance suffered as a result of the "erasure" of their names. The Court considered it reasonable to award each applicant an amount of just satisfaction based on the time spent as an "erased" person, from 28 June 1994 � when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in respect of Slovenia � until the date on which his or her legal status was finally restored, multiplied by a monthly lump sum of EUR 150. Furthermore, the Court observed that families receiving social allowance were entitled under the relevant Slovenian legislation to claim child benefit. Consequently, in the Court's view, one applicant, Ms Mezga, was entitled to compensation in respect of two of her children and another applicant, Mr Berisha, was entitled to compensation in respect of his five children. The amounts of compensation were to be based on the varying length of time from the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia � or, as applicable, the children's birth � until the children reached the age of majority or the respective applicant's legal status was regulated, multiplied by a monthly lump sum of EUR 80. At the same time, the Court dismissed the applicants' claims as regards housing and spouse allowance and as regards pension rights. In particular, the Court held that Slovenia was to pay the applicants, within three months of today's judgment, the following amounts in respect of pecuniary damage: EUR 29,400 to Mr Kuri; EUR 52,240 to Ms Mezga; EUR 30,000 to Mr Ristanovi; EUR 72,770 to Mr Berisha; EUR 30,150 to Mr Ademi; EUR 30,300 to Mr Mini. Furthermore, the Court held that Slovenia was to pay four of the applicants various sums, totalling EUR 339.42, and EUR 5,000 to all six applicants jointly, in respect of cost and expenses. Article 46 (execution of judgments) The Court observed that the Slovenian Government had failed to set up a compensation scheme for the "erased" by 26 June 2013, when the one-year period referred to in the judgment on the merits expired. However, the Government had acknowledged that general measures at national level were required in order to execute the judgment beyond the interests of the applicants in the case. The Court had due regard to the fact that an Act on the setting up of an ad hoc compensation scheme, awarding compensation on the basis of a lump sum for each month of a person's "erasure" as well as a possibility of claiming additional limited compensation under the general tort rules, had entered into force in December 2013, and will become applicable on 18 June 2014. While it was for the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the measures adopted, the Court considered in the exceptional circumstances of the present case that the solution, introduced by the Act, of awarding compensation on the basis of a lump sum for each month of a person's "erasure" appeared to be appropriate. There are currently some 65 similar cases � involving more than 1,000 applicants � pending before the Court, yet to be examined. The judgment is available in English and French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 5