FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no 24141/06
Andrej PIPUŠ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 February 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 25 May 2006,
Having regard to the written submissions of the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrej Pipuš, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Maribor. He is represented before the Court by Ms B. Senčar-Leljak, a lawyer practising in Maribor. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Civil proceedings
On 9 May 1994 the applicant signed a lease contract with D.V., V.V. and B.V.
On 9 December 1994 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the tenants, claiming that they had breached the provisions of the lease contract.
On 4 March 2004 the Maribor Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
On 6 June 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
The applicant subsequently lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 13 December 2007.
2. Proceedings concerning a claim for non-pecuniary damage on account of the alleged delays in the above criminal proceedings
On 21 September 2009 the respondent Government were given notice of the application. Subsequently, on 21 December 2009, the Government submitted that a settlement proposal was offered to the applicant under section 25 of the 2006 Act. However, the domestic settlement procedure was not successful.
On 30 December 2009 the applicant, relying on 2006 Act, lodged a claim with the Celje Local Court seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 4,700 for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings.
On 8 November 2010 the court gave a judgment. The court found that the applicant’s right to the trial within a reasonable time had been breached and that the State is to pay EUR 4,320 to the applicant. The court dismissed the remainder of the claim.
The applicant appealed.
On 29 June 2011 the Celje Higher Court modified the first-instance judgment as far as the statutory default interests and the costs of the proceedings were concerned. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal.
On 17 October 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
These proceedings are to date still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the domestic proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage on account of the delays allegedly occurred in the civil proceedings are still pending before the Constitutional Court. This part of the application is therefore premature and must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 of the Convention.
As to the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 that the remedies at his disposal for excessively lengthy proceedings were ineffective, it should be declared manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. The application should therefore be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
	Stephen Phillips	Ann Power-Forde
	Deputy Registrar	President