CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          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