AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 33764/96
by M. L.
against Slovenia
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 26 September 1996
by M. L. against Slovenia and registered on 13 November 1996 under file
No. 33764/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovenian citizen, born in 1935, and residing
in Portoroz.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In May 1977 the applicant got a job as a croupier at the socially
owned Casino in Portoroz.
After independence of Slovenia in 1991 the draft law on
privatizing casinos was published. Worried about the dangers of the
proposed privatisation the applicant kept warning the Parliament and
the public that the casinos would fall into the hands of former
political structures to the detriment of the society.
In May 1993 the applicant published an article in the newspaper
Delo and weekly magazine Mladina on events in the field of gambling.
Due to some statements which allegedly insulted the managers of the
Casino, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him. On
12 July 1993 the employer`s Disciplinary Commission decided to
terminate his employment. This was confirmed by the second instance
Disciplinary Commission in August 1993. The applicant has been
unemployed since August 1993.
In December 1993 the applicant appealed to the Postojna Labour
Court (Delovno sodisce). The Court on 1 February 1994 quashed the
Disciplinary Commission`s decision and ruled that the employer should
reengage the applicant and at the same time recognize all rights from
employment, including his salary, as if he had been working.
The employer appealed against the above decision of the Labour
Court. On 26 October 1995 the Higher Labour and Social Court (Visje
delovno in socialno sodisce) in Ljubljana quashed a decision and
returned the matter to the first instance, namely to the Postojna
Labour Court.
On 10 December 1996 the first instance court again decided in
applicant`s favour. It found no lawful grounds for the termination of
the applicant`s employment.
The company again appealed against the decision, apparently
because the applicant did not agree to confirm in writing that he would
cease to publish articles about the company in the media.
The case is now pending before the Higher Labour and Social Court
in Ljubljana.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about
the length of proceedings, as he has been unemployed for nearly four
years without any salary to live on. He claims that the proceedings are
being deliberately lengthened to hurt and punish him for publishing his
opinions in the media.
The applicant also invokes Article 10 of the Convention in that
he was penalised for expressing his opinions while even, as stated by
the first instance court, the texts written were only about the
situation in the casino business generally and have not insulted anyone
personally.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the length of proceedings under
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), as far as relevant, provides as
follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of
any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair
and public hearing within a reasonable time ..."
The Commission first recalls that the date of ratification of the
Convention and the recognition of a right to individual petition by
Slovenia is 28 June 1994. The relevant period for the Commission is
therefore three years, although the overall proceedings have lasted
nearly three years and six months to date.
The Commission also recalls that employment disputes require
special diligence (Eur. Court HR, Ruotolo v. Italy judgment of
27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, para. 17). In the present
case however, the courts have on three occasions decided on the merits
of the case, which is now pending before the second instance court.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the length
of proceedings does not exceed the reasonable time provided for by
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant also complains that his dismissal constitutes a
breach of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.
The Commission is not, however, called upon to decide whether the
facts alleged by the applicant disclose an appearance of a violation
of that provision. Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, "the
Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies
have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of
international law". The Commission notes that the proceedings are still
pending before the Higher Labour and Social Court in Ljubljana and no
particular circumstances are disclosed which could exempt the applicant
from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for
non-exhaustion under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy