5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Domžale. 6.  In 1949, the applicants' parents were convicted of “illegal commerce” and sentenced to imprisonment with forced labour. In addition, their property was forfeited to the State. 7.  On 30 September 1991 the Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicants that it had lodged a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) challenging the 1949 judgment. On 17 October 1991 the court upheld the request in part and annulled the judgment in the part referring to forced labour and forfeiture of property. 8.  On 18 November 1991 the applicants instituted proceedings for restitution of property in the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) against the Municipality of Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik and the Republic of Slovenia. They also sought compensation for the forced labour their parents were subjected to.
On 22 October 1993 the court delivered a partial decision whereby it ordered the restitution of one of the plots of land claimed by the applicants, which was an unencumbered public property at the time. The decision became final on 9 December 1993.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 19 October 1994 the court delivered another partial decision whereby it awarded compensation in the amount of 5,585,527 tolars (approximately 23,300 euros) to each of the applicants for the remaining confiscated property. The compensation was to be paid by the Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik. 9.  The Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik appealed against the decision of 19 October 1994 to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani). Applicants cross appealed. 10.  At an undetermined time the Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik rendered a decision concerning the house claimed by the applicant. This decision made possible the restitution of a part of the property in natura. The Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik submitted this decision to the Ljubljana Local Court on 15 November 1994.
On 1 January 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case as the first-instance court following the reform of the Slovenian judicial system. At the same time, following a reform of the system of local governance, the Municipality Ljubljana became liable for the restitution, instead of the Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik (“the Municipality”).
On 10 February 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court issued a partial decision returning this part of property to the applicants. That property included also a house, except the attics which had been purchased by a company SP and occupied by its employee M.Š. 11.  The Municipality, the company SP and M.Š. appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.
On 29 November 1995 the Ljubljana Higher Court allowed the appeals lodged against the decisions of 19 October 1994 and 10 February 1995 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 12.  Between 18 January 1996 and 10 March 2006 the applicants lodged eleven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence with the Ljubljana Local Court.
Of the five hearings held between 2 April 1996 and 2 March 2006 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, one of the scheduled hearings was cancelled at the applicants' request and the scheduling of the next hearing adjourned sine die, because they wished to retain a new lawyer.
During the proceedings the court appointed an expert in construction engineering and an expert in geodesy. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.
On 4 April 2001 and on 23 November 2004 the court requested the applicants to amend their claims as required by the law. The applicants' replied each time within a month and amended their claims.
During the proceedings, the applicants lodged more than fifteen requests for speeding up the proceedings with several institutions, including the Ministry of Justice, the Prime Minister, the Ombudsman, the European Commission and the European Parliament.
On 31 March 2006 the court dismissed the applicants' claims, because they were not duly specified. The decision was served on the applicants on 5 May 2006. 13.  On 22 May 2006 the applicants appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.
The proceedings are still pending.