5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Litija. 6.  Since 1979 the applicant was engaged as a typist at Slovenian Railways – “SZ” (Slovenske železnice). In 1983 a fire broke out on the premises. However, the work continued in the offices that were not directly affected by the fire. In 1984 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from asthma and was advised to avoid dust and contact with certain material. She subsequently received daily injections. In 1985 she was recognised as suffering from level three invalidity. Subsequently, she was transferred to an administrative post. In August 1985 she stopped working, only returning for a period of eight days in 1988. In 1990 she retired owing to her invalidity. 7.  On 23 November 1989 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation and loss of earnings against SZ. 8.  On 31 October 1991 the second-instance court upheld a judgment by the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) that partly rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation against SZ. On 24 April 1992 the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour decided the remainder of her claim.
Several hearings were held in the above proceedings. 9.  On 19 November 1993 the applicant lodged a request for the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of new evidence, in particular new scientific findings concerning the effect on the respiratory system of certain gaseous emissions during a fire. The request was upheld on 14 February 1994. 10.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia. 11.   On 5 July 1994 SZ lodged an appeal, which was rejected on 17 October 1995 by the Higher Labour and Social Court. On the latter date the decision to reopen the case became final and the proceedings were subsequently reopened. 12.  On 25 November 1996 the court appoint an expert, which produced a report on 26 March 1997.
Between 9 January 1996 and 27 May 1997 the court held 7 hearings.
On 27 May 1997 the renamed Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) delivered an interim judgment in which it found SZ liable for the damage caused by the work-related disease – bronchial asthma. 13.  On 9 September 1997 SZ appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).
On 18 December 1997 the court allowed the appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the interim judgment contained insufficient reasoning, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. 14.  In the re-examination proceedings, the expert produced an additional opinion on 18 June 1998. 15.  The court held five hearings between 24 February 1998 and 23 March 1999.
On 23 March 1999 the first-instance court delivered an interim judgment in which it found SZ liable for 50% of the damages suffered by the applicant due to the asthma. 16.  Both parties appealed.
On 19 November 1999 the Higher Labour and Social Court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation. 17.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 10 October 2000 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the law had been wrongly applied, with the result that the facts had not been established sufficiently. It quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. 18.  In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant replied to two sets of submissions by SZ.
Hearings were held on 20 June, 10 October and 5 December 2001 and 31 January 2002.
On 31 January 2002 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court delivered an interim judgment in which it found SZ liable for 70% of the damage suffered by the applicant due to the asthma. The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 February 2002. 19.  Both parties appealed.
On 26 September 2002 the Higher Labour and Social Court allowed the appeals on the grounds of, inter alia, insufficient reasoning and again remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. 20.  On 30 January 2003 a hearing was held. On the same date the first-instance court requested the Faculty of Medicine to prepare an expert report. The expert appointed by the Faculty produced the report on 4 February 2004.
A request lodged by SZ on 10 February 2004 for the expert to stand down was rejected by the court on 18 March 2004.
On 4 May 2004 the court received a reply from the expert to the defendant’s objections to the findings in the report.
On 14 September 2004 the court held a hearing and delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim which was served on the parties on 21 October 2004. 21.  On 2 November 2004 the applicant appealed.
On 27 January 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the appeal. 22.  On 17 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 17 January 2006 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment rejecting the appeal on points of law. This judgment was served on the applicant on 25 January 2006. 23.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant sent numerous requests and complaints concerning the length of the proceedings to the relevant courts and various public bodies, including the Ombudsman for Human Rights (Varuh človekovih pravic). 24.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining of the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the lack of a remedy.
On 3 July 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal after finding that she should have made a claim for damages under Article 26 of the Slovenian Constitution.