CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 avril 2013

.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 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6ADF1EA6 { width:167.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8045/06 Samo RAVŠER against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 April 2013 as a Committee composed of: Angelika Nußberger, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Samo Ravšer, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Ravne Na Koroškem. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 13 June 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Maribor District Court. A hearing was held on 1 April 2003. On the same date the Maribor District Court delivered the judgment. Both parties appealed. On 6 December 2005 the Maribor Higher Court granted the appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court. On 23 February 2006 the Maribor District Court held a hearing and issued its judgment. The applicant appealed. On 23 February 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Maribor District Court. On 2 March 2007 the president of the Maribor District Court referred the applicant’s supervisory appeal to the president of the Maribor Higher Court. On 14 March 2007 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the applicant’s supervisory appeal as unsubstantiated. On 3 April 2007 the Maribor Higher Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant in the main proceedings. The decision was served on the applicant on 22 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, as submitted by the Government, that the proceedings were terminated on 22 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 his disposal domestic remedies, which he 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, n o. 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 Phillips   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President