FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50485/06
Fatmir BLAKČORI
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 December 2006,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Fatmir Blakčori, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Železniki. He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practising in Medvode. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 October 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Kranj District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained at the workplace.
Between 25 March 2003 and 28 February 2006 three hearings were held and one expert appointed.
On 24 May 2006 the first-instance court issued a judgment. Both parties appealed.
On 8 November 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment upholding the appeal in part. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 3 December 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The decision was served on the applicant on 24 December 2009.
B. Relevant domestic law
For relevant domestic law see decision Žurej v. Slovenia (no. 10386/03, §§ 14-15, 26 March 2010).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts was excessive. In substance, he also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court notes that on 1 January 2007 the proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. The proceedings ended on 24 December 2009, when the Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant.
The Court further notes that the applicant failed to avail himself of the acceleratory remedies in order to speed up the proceedings and therefore failed to satisfy the conditions for the just satisfaction claim (see Žurej v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 10386/03, 16 March 2010, §§ 17-19 and Nezirovič v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16400/06, §§ 27- 41, 18 November 2008).
The Court therefore finds that the complaint regarding Article 6 of the Convention must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
As to the complaint under Article 13 the Court has already found that the 2006 Act does afford the applicant an effective remedy in respect of her complaint about the length of proceedings (see case-law cited above). That finding is also valid in the context of her complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy