Area: Pravosodje
Competent authority: MNZ
EZU URL: .nan
Initiative ID: 87
Initiative accepted and completed: '2013-03-13'
Initiative classified in EZU: .nan
Initiative forwarded in response: '2013-02-18'
Initiative published: '2013-02-18'
Initiative submitted: '2013-02-18'
Response from the competent authority: 'On 18.2.2013, the Ministry of Justice and
  Public Administration received your e-mail with the letter you received via the
  "minus 25%" portal. It states that, in view of the existence of a backlog of litigation,
  the client has a specific proposal on how to give the creditor the earliest possible
  satisfaction in litigation where the creditor is suing the debtor. We forward our
  reply below, noting that the client has sent the same letter to several addresses
  and has already received the same reply (except for the introduction below). The
  reply: "Your letter states that, in view of the existence of a backlog of cases,
  you have a specific proposal on how to give the earliest possible satisfaction to
  the creditor in litigation where the creditor sues the debtor.Specifically, you
  propose that, where the court does not conclude the litigation with a judgment within
  one year, the obligation to pay the meritorious claim (due to the exceeding of a
  reasonable time for trial - i.e. the violation of the right to a trial within a
  reasonable period of time) should be shifted to the Republic of Slovenia. In our
  view, your proposal is unfounded. The State should not interfere in such an overbearing
  manner in the independent relations between creditors and debtors who are litigating
  before an independent court. Moreover, interference in this relationship would imply
  a biased characterisation of the State as determining that the creditor''s claim
  is justified and could even be considered as indirect pressure on the court''s decision-making,
  which would be inappropriate in the light of the provisions of the Constitution
  of the Republic of Slovenia on the separation of powers (second sentence of Article
  3(2)), on the independence of judges (Article 125), on the independence of courts
  (Article 23(1)) and of the European Convention on Human Rights on the independence
  of the judiciary (Article 23(1)), and of the European Convention on Human Rights
  on the independence of the courts (Article 23(1)), (Article 23(1)). Such an interference
  would also constitute an interference with the creditor''s right to property within
  the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights
  (protection of property).Finally, if the court rules that the creditor''s claim
  is unfounded, this means that the State has irresponsibly entered into the proceedings,
  automatically followed the creditor and is now claiming reimbursement of what it
  has been paid, while it should clearly sue the creditor for some kind of unjust
  enrichment.This would be a violation of Article 1(1) of Protocol No 1 to the European
  Convention on Human Rights (protection of property). It is clear that such a system
  would not work, and even if it were introduced it would then give rise to new litigation
  in the courts, with the former creditor acting as debtor and the State Advocate''s
  Office as plaintiff.On the issue of actions against persons allegedly responsible
  for the backlog of cases, we draw attention to the precedent decision of the Constitutional
  Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 2013 on 26. In our opinion, this decision should
  be understood as modifying the scope of the existing concept of the State''s liability
  for damages, in particular in the sense of the view that the Republic of Slovenia
  is also liable for unlawful conduct that is not attributable to a particular person
  or a particular authority, but rather to the State or its apparatus as such, as
  well as for cases where there is no individualized relationship between the authority
  holder and the affected individual, such as in the case of the case of the State''s
  liability for damages, in particular in the case of the case of the State''s liability
  for damages for unlawful conduct that is not attributable We also draw attention
  to the decision of the High Court of Ljubljana on the liability of judges under
  the first paragraph of Article 134(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia,
  which refers to the liability of judges under the first paragraph of Article 134(1)
  of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, as well as to the liability of
  the executive and the legislative branches of power. The Court of First Instance
  of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled that, under the above-mentioned
  provision of the Constitution, the liability of a holder of a judicial office for
  an opinion he or she has given in making a decision in court is absolutely excluded
  - this is not only the final decision, but the totality of procedural and substantive
  decisions that led to the final result in an individual judicial proceeding. Substantive
  immunity therefore excludes the direct liability to damages of judges and constitutes
  an absolute bar to the commencement of legal proceedings.   In conclusion, the Ministry
  of Justice and Public Administration emphasises that we believe that the judiciary
  of the Republic of Slovenia needs additional incentives and assistance to speed
  up judicial decision-making and we are therefore preparing several proposals for
  amendments to laws as appropriate measures with the aim of ensuring the effective
  functioning of the rule of law, which is a commitment under Article 2 of the Constitution
  of the Republic of Slovenia. These future legislative proposals include an amendment
  to the Courts Act, an amendment to the Judicial Service Act and an amendment to
  the Act on Financial Management, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up."'
Text file: 87.txt
Title: Initiative to amend insolvency law
URL: https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/pobuda/?st=87
