THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 3069/06
by Andrej OJSTERŠEK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	Elisabet Fura, President,
	Boštjan M. Zupančič,
	Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 2005,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1.  The applicant, Mr Andrej Ojsteršek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Dob pri Domžalah. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A.  The circumstances of the case
2.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3.  On 4 January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Domžale Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Domžalah) against the insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav seeking damages in the amount of 551,952.00 Slovenian Tolars (approximately 2,200 euros) sustained in a car accident.
4.  Between 27 January 1999 and 5 March 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submission and/or requests for a hearing to be set.
5.  On 9 July 2002 the case-file was transferred to the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) following the Domžale District Court’s decision on lack of jurisdiction.
6.  On 16 September 2004 the first hearing was held.
7.  On 3 November 2004 the court appointed a medical expert.
8.  On 17 August 2005 the court received two expert opinions.
9.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant requested a new expert opinion and the court upheld his request.
10.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).
11.  On 13 April 2007 the President of the Ljubljana District Court rejected the supervisory appeal on procedural grounds for being incomplete.
12.  Between 13 November 2008 and 26 May 2009 four hearings were held.
13.  On 26 May 2009 the first-instance judgment was delivered. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 4 November 2009 the Ljubljana Local Court issued a decision, whereby it found that the applicant’s appeal against the judgment was considered to have been withdrawn, since he failed to pay the court fees. The applicant appealed against this decision.
15.  On 9 December 2009 the appeal was rejected.
B.  Relevant domestic law
16.  A description of relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment Grzinčič v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007, §§ 35–48).
COMPLAINTS	
17.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
18.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.
 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
19.  He further complained that the remedies available in Slovenia in length-of-proceedings cases were ineffective.
Article 13 of the Convention provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
20.  The Court observes that on 1 January 2007, when the new legislation providing remedies for the length of proceedings (the 2006 Act) became operational, the proceedings were pending before the first-instance court. The proceedings ended on 9 December 2009 (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above).
21.  The Court recalls that in Grzinčič v. Slovenia (cited above, § 110) and Korenjak v. Slovenia (no. 463/03, § 75, 15 May 2007) the Court was satisfied that the aggregate of remedies provided by the 2006 Act in cases of excessively long proceedings pending at first and second instance is effective and that the applicants are required to use the new remedies.
22.  As regards the present case, the Court observes that the applicant did lodge a supervisory appeal under the 2006 Act, which was, however, rejected on procedural grounds as incomplete (see paragraphs 10 and 11). Since the applicant failed to use the domestic remedies in the prescribed manner, the complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the undue length of proceedings should be rejected under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
23.  As to the complaint under Article 13, the Court has found that the 2006 Act did afford an effective remedy in respect of his complaint about the length of proceedings (see paragraph 21 above). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
24.  The application must therefore be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
	Marialena Tsirli	Elisabet Fura
	Deputy Registrar	President