CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5722A5BC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 49914/06 Simeun VUKOVIĆ 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 13 November 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Simeun Vuković, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Senožeče. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Đurković, a lawyer practising in Koper. 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 7 June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Koper District Court against the Republic of Slovenia seeking compensation for damages. Between 21 January 2004 and 14 May 2004 three hearings were postponed on the request of the defendant. The first hearing was held on 21   June 2004. Between 27 October 2004 and 25 February 2005 three more hearings were held. On 25 April 2005 the first-instance court rendered a judgment. The applicant appealed. On 19 September 2005 the Koper Higher Court rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 11 December 2006 the case-file was sent to the Supreme Court. On 6 October 2009, the date of the last correspondence with the Court, the proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Court. 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 Articles 6 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings. In substance he also complained about the lack of an effective remedy in this regard (Article 13). THE LAW The Court observes that on 1 January 2007 the proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. On 6 October 2009, the date of the last correspondence with the Court, the proceedings had still not terminated. The Court notes that the applicant failed to avail himself of the acceleratory remedies before the Supreme Court in order to speed up the proceedings nor did he lodge a just satisfaction claim for which he in any event failed to satisfy the conditions (see Žurej v. Slovenia (dec.), no.   10386/03, 16 March 2010, §§ 17-19). 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 Žurej v. Slovenia 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 Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President