FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30837/06
Olga SENTIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2006,
Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made to the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Olga Sentič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Ravne na Koroškem. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ocepek, a lawyer practising in Slovenj Gradec.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 July 1991 the applicant was discharged from the company TP Jamnica as a result of disciplinary proceedings. The applicant appealed against that decision. Her appeal was dismissed by the board of executives of TP Jamnica on 26 August 1991. Her employment with TP Jamnica was thus terminated.
On 11 September 1991 the applicant instituted proceedings against TP Jamnica with the Maribor Court of Associated Labour, contesting the decision concerning termination of her employment.
On 17 March 1992 the court dismissed her claim. The applicant appealed. On 3 September 1992 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. The case was subsequently two more times remitted for re-examination.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 10 September 2002 the Maribor Labour Court issued a written judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The decision issued in disciplinary proceedings, discharging the applicant from work, was therefore maintained.
The applicant appealed. On 18 June 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, which were both dismissed.
The last decision was served on the applicant on 9 February 2006.
THE LAW
The applicant first complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.
The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had reached a settlement with the applicant as regards the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she wished to withdraw this complaint.
The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant wishes to withdraw her application in the part concerning her complaint about the undue length of proceedings. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application as far as it concerns the length of the proceedings out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
Moreover, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of proceedings.
In this connection, the Court recalls its findings from previous cases where it found that the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) did afford the applicants effective remedy in respect of their complaints about the length of proceedings (see, for example, Pohlen v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 28457/03, §§ 36-44). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 about the unfairness of the impugned proceedings. Having regard to all material in its possession, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases with regard to the complaint about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stephen PhillipsGanna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy