FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50427/06
Ratko ĐAKOVIĆ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 May 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 8 December 2006,
Having regard to the comments submitted by parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ratko Đaković, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Celje. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. 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 30 May 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained at the workplace.
On 16 September 2003 the first-instance court submitted a request to the Supreme Court for the case to be delegated to another court due to lack of jurisdiction.
On 17 December 2003 the case was transferred to the Ptuj District Court.
On 18 March 2004 the first hearing was held.
Between 24 May 2004 and 26 August 2004 the first-instance court held three hearings and appointed one expert. At the last hearing the court delivered a judgment. An appeal was lodged.
On 5 September 2006 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
The hearing scheduled for 5 March 2007 was postponed after the parties expressed their willingness to reach a settlement. On the same day the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay.
On 17 April 2007 the first-instance court issued a decision on the termination of proceedings following the withdrawal of the claim submitted on 28 March 2007.
B.  Relevant domestic law
For relevant domestic law see decision Repar v. Slovenia, no. 40739/05, 12 October 2010).
COMPLAINTS
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
Further to the communication of the case under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the Government argued that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed and the application should be rejected as unsubstantiated. The applicant was requested to submit comments, which he never did.
The Court recalls that the “reasonable” length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The Court observes that the time to be taken in consideration in the present case started on 30 May 2003, the date when the domestic proceedings were instituted, and ended on 17 April 2007, the date when the decision on the termination of proceedings was issued. The proceedings therefore lasted three years and eleven months at two levels of jurisdiction.
Having regard to all the material submitted to it and having regard to the Court’s case-law on the subject (see for example Repar v. Slovenia (cited above), Vuk v. Slovenia, no. 45496/06, 3 April 2012 and Hornak v. Slovakia, no. 43527/04, 24 November 2009) the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings can still be considered as reasonable.
The Court therefore finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
As to the complaint regarding the lack of effective remedies the Court recalls that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim that his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 was violated. Therefore, this claim does not reveal any appearance of violation of this provision.
Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in the meaning of 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