5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Frankolovo. 6.  On 7 March 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant's employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM. 7.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. He also sought an exemption from paying court fees. 8.  Between 27 December 1999 and 28 February 2001 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence four times. 9.  The first hearing was held on 27 September 2000. 10.  On 27 October 2000 the court appointed a medical expert. On 18 December 2000 the appointed expert submitted his report. 11.  On 4 April 2001 the court held another hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 October 2001. 12.  On 7 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). He also requested the first-instance court to rectify its judgment. 13.  On 9 November 2001 the first-instance court rectified the judgment of 4 April 2001. 14.  On 14 May 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the applicant's appeal in part and modified the first-instance court's judgment accordingly. That decision was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003. 15.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), which was rejected on 1 April 2004 as the value of the claim fell below the statutory threshold. That decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2004. 16.  On 23 May 2007 the respondent Government were given notice of the application. The Government was asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present case, which would enable the applicant to avail himself of domestic settlement proceedings before the State Attorney's Office (see Relevant domestic law below). 17.  Subsequently, on 12 October 2007, the Government submitted that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable in the present case since the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed in the impugned domestic proceedings. Therefore, the Government refused to offer the applicant a settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act. 18.  The applicant did not comment on this issue.