FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38565/06
Marija ŠTORMAN
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 October 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 September 2006,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marija Štorman, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec. She is represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 June 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court.
Between 9 March 2005 and 11 July 2006 the Court held two hearings.
On 21 August 2006 the first-instance court rendered a judgment. The applicant appealed.
On 18 April 2007 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court rejected her appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the proceedings were terminated on 15 May 2007, when the second-instance decision was served on the applicant, which is more than three months after the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay became operational. The applicant therefore had at her disposal domestic remedies, which she failed to exhaust.
Having regards to the Court’s well-established case-law (see Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 110, 3 May 2007 and Nezirovič v. Slovenia, no. 16400/06, (dec.), 18 November 2008, §§ 27-42) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention for being manifestly ill-founded. Thus, the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 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