THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 10386/03
by Vojko ŽUREJ
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Vojko Žurej, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Dramlje. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. First set of proceedings (no. P 151/2001)

3. On 31 December 2001 an insurance company (Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.) instituted proceedings against the applicant.

4. On 1 February 2006 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) gave a first-instance judgment. An appeal was lodged.

5. On 1 February 2007 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) gave a judgment upholding the first-instance court’s judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

6. On 22 June 2009 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) with the Supreme Court. The supervisory appeal was rejected.

7. On 19 August 2009 the applicant lodged a motion for deadline.

The proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.

2. Second set of proceedings (no. P239/95)

8. On 15 December 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings against an insurance company (Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.) seeking compensation for damages occurred at the working place.

9. On 25 May 1996 the Celje District Court issued a judgment. The applicant appealed.

10. On 13 February 1997 the Celje Higher Court issued a decision and remitted the case for re-examination.

11. On 7 December 1998 a first-instance judgment was issued. The applicant appealed.

12. On 16 Dec