6.  The applicants, Mr Miklavž Knez, Mr Andrej Jakša, Mr Igor Levstek, Ms Silvija Oblak and Mr Aleksander Majdič are Slovenian nationals, who were born in 1929, 1932, 1931, 1912 and 1922, respectively, and live in Ljubljana, except Mr Aleksander Majdič, who lives in Bled. 7.  On 11 December 1946 the Ljubljana District Court convicted Mr T. K., who was a legal predecessor of Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša, and sentenced him to 10 years' deprivation of liberty with forced labour, forfeiture of his property and of the property belonging to the company I. K. (Mr T. K. and Mr Miklavž Knez were partners in the company I. K.) to the State. Mr T. K. was also stripped of his civil and political rights for three years. On 31 January 1947 that judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court. 8.  On 13 November 1991, after the independence of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the Public Prosecutor filed a request for protection of legality against the criminal judgment. On 19 December 1991 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction. 9.  On 7 September 1992 Mr T. K. lodged a request for compensation for wrongful conviction with the Ministry of Justice. 10.  On 18 January 1993 the newly incorporated company T. K., claiming to be the legal successor of the company I. K., instituted proceedings against a company PEKO and another party in the then Kranj Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Kranju), seeking restitution of or compensation for the property forfeited by the company I. K. 11.  The company T. K. also filed a motion for a temporary injunction in order to protect the property of the company PEKO in the process of privatisation. At an undetermined time, the requested temporary injunction was granted. 2.  Proceedings to which Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša are parties
Request for restitution of, or compensation for, the forfeited property 12.  On 14 February 1994 fourteen individuals, including Mr T. K. and the applicants Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša, joined the company T. K. in the above-mentioned proceedings. They also informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement with the second adversary party to the restitution proceedings. 13.  On 3 April 2001 the claimants modified their restitution claims and, inter alia, included the Republic of Slovenia among the adversary parties. 14.  Between 13 December 2002 and 11 February 2005 the court held seven hearings, at which it obtained two expert opinions, clarified the locus standi of the parties to the proceedings and identified the exact nature and scope of the property claimed. 15.  On 22 May 2006 the court rejected all claims for restitution of or compensation for the forfeited property. 16.  On 18 October 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) set aside the judgment of 22 May 2006 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. 17.  The proceedings are pending. 18.  On 24 October 1994 the company T. K. and its partners lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice in order to claim compensation for loss of profits following the forfeiture of the company's property. On 11 January 1995 the Ministry rejected their request. 19.  On 25 January 1995, the company T. K., Mr T. K. and the applicant Mr Miklavž Knez instituted proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani), seeking compensation in the amount of 1,286,943,751.05 Slovenian tolars (“SIT”) (10,397,865 US dollars at the material time) for the loss of profits of the confiscated company I. K. and the companies owned by it. 20.  On 17 September 1998, on the applicant's request, the court decided not to continue with the proceedings until the European Court of Human Rights had decided upon the present application. 21.  Mr T. K., born in December 1901, died in October 1998. 22.  On 3 July 2002 the court held a hearing, at which both parties agreed to stay the proceedings until the proceedings concerning the restitution of property were terminated. 23.  The proceedings are pending. 4.  Proceedings to which Mr Igor Levstek and Silvija Oblak were parties
Request for restitution of, or compensation for, the forfeited property 24.  The applicant Mr Igor Levstek is an heir of Mr I. L. and Mrs N. L., who were convicted on 12 January 1946 by the Supreme Court. Mr I. L. was sentenced to death and Mrs N. L. to 8 years' imprisonment. They were both also sentenced to forfeiture of their property to the State and stripped of their civil and political rights. The applicant Ms Silvija Oblak is an heir of Mr F. O., who was also convicted by the above-mentioned judgment of 12 January 1946 and was sentenced to 15 years' deprivation of liberty with forced labour. He was also sentenced to forfeiture of his property and stripped of his civil and political rights. 25.  On 20 February 1991, after the independence of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the Supreme Court granted the request for reopening of the criminal proceedings lodged by Mr Igor Levstek and Ms Silvija Oblak. On 29 March 1991 the Public Prosecutor withdrew the criminal charges, following which the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani) on 8 April 1991 terminated the criminal proceedings and set aside the judgment of 12 January 1946. 26.  On 15 May 1991 Mr Igor Levstek and Silvija Oblak, together with some other individuals, started proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia in the then Ljubljana Basic Court, Rakek Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota na Rakeku), seeking restitution of forfeited property and compensation for the property that could no longer be returned in natura, including loss of profits. 27.  On 5 November 1991 the court held a hearing, at which the applicants supplemented their request with an additional list of forfeited property. 28.  On 2 December 1991 the court appointed an expert to evaluate the nature and value of the property which the applicants claimed in the restitution proceedings. 29.  On 7 October 1993 the court held a hearing and subsequently adjourned it for 30 days, in order to invite also the Cerknica Municipality and the appointed expert to participate at the hearing. 30.  On 15 October 1993 the applicants again supplemented their request with an additional list of forfeited property. 31.  On 6 December 1993 the court held another hearing, at which it decided to issue a partial decision. 32.  On 28 January 1994 the court granted the applicants compensation for the forfeited property, but not for the loss of profits. 33.  On 10 May 1994, the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The Republic of Slovenia lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court against this decision. 34.  On 4 November 1994 the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the second- and first-instance courts and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. 35.  On 19 April 1995 the re-named Cerknica Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Cerknici) held a hearing. 36.  On 29 April 1998 the Republic of Slovenia requested an adjournment of the next scheduled hearing, which was granted by the court. The hearing was eventually held on 25 May 1998. 37.  On 3 July 2000 the applicants withdrew their claims against the Cerknica Municipality (Občina Cerknica) as one of the adversaries in the proceedings, following which the court on 25 October 2000 terminated the proceedings relating to this part of the claim. 38.  On 30 October 2000 the Republic of Slovenia requested the adjournment of the next scheduled hearing, which was granted by the court. The hearing was eventually held on 21 November 2000. 39.  On 9 January 2001 and 28 June 2001 the court held two more hearings. At the hearing held on 28 June 2001 the court issued an order by which it decided upon the restitution of a part of the property. 40.  On 21 September 2001 the court rectified the order of 28 June 2001. 41.  On 25 October 2001 the court again rectified the order of 28 June 2001. 42.  On 13 November 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld in part the appeal of the Republic of Slovenia against the order of the first-instance court. 43.  On 25 March 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' request to appoint another court to decide on the case. 44.  At an undetermined time between 13 November 2002 and 1 December 2004 Ms Silvija Oblak, as well as some other claimants, ceased to be parties to the proceedings. 45.  On 8 July 2004 the Cerknica Local Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the part of the applicants' claims concerning a property falling under the jurisdiction of another district court. 46.  On 1 December 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court decided that the Cerknica Local Court should hear the case as far as it concerned the property at issue. 47.  On 30 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court handed down the final decision in respect of the conflict of jurisdiction and appointed the Cerknica Local Court to decide also upon the property falling under the jurisdiction of the Ljubljana Local Court. 48.  On 21 June 2005 the first-instance court held a hearing and decided, due to the applicant's partial withdrawal of his restitution claims, to terminate the proceedings in the part relating to these claims. 49.  On 16 November 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing, where it decided on the remainder of the restitution claims. It granted to each of the claimants, including the applicant Mr Igor Levstek, compensation for the forfeited immovable property in the value of 269,407.52 German marks at the material time. In addition, it granted to each claimant, including the applicant Mr Igor Levstek, compensation for the forfeited movable property in the value of 19,276 US dollars at the material time. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 December 2006. None of the parties appealed. 50.  On 4 February 1994 Mr Igor Levstek, together with another individual, lodged a request for compensation for loss of profits further to the forfeiture of the property to the State, initially filed with the Ljubljana Basic Court, with the Ministry of Justice. According to the applicant's submissions, the Ministry instructed him to lodge the request with the competent court. 51.  On 26 October 1994 Mr Igor Levstek, together with another individual, initiated proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia for compensation for loss of profits with the Rakek Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Rakeku) in the amount of 439,475,000 SIT. 52.  On 19 April 1995 the applicant modified his claims and requested the amount of 439,475,000 SIT as covering also compensation for certain property that could no longer be returned in natura. 53.  On 11 October 1995 the court declared that it had no jurisdiction over the case and submitted the case file to the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani). 54.  On 27 May 1997 the applicant again modified his request. 55.  On 3 November 1997 the applicant urged the court to decide promptly on the case. 56.  On 25 November 1997 the court decided, at the Republic of Slovenia's request, to stay the proceedings temporarily due to the new Act on Temporary Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Denationalisation Act and of the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions. 57.  On 3 April 1998 the court terminated the proceedings following the applicant's withdrawal of all claims. 58.  On 17 September 1998 the Ljubljana Higher Court allowed the applicant's appeal and set aside the decision of the first-instance court. The applicant also appealed against this decision. 59.  On 11 December 1998, at the applicant's request, the first-instance court cancelled a scheduled hearing and decided not to continue the proceedings until the European Court of Human Rights had decided upon the present application. 60.  On 6 April 2006 the applicant modified and partially withdrew his claims. 61.  On 30 August 2006 the court held a hearing and decided to adjourn it in order to give the parties time to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. The hearing was adjourned sine die due to the replacement of the acting judge. 62.  On 6 December 2006 the court held another hearing. 63.  The proceedings are pending. 64.  On 20 July 1946 the Ljubljana District Court convicted Mr M. L., who was a legal predecessor of the applicant Mr Aleksander Majdič, for two offences and sentenced him to five years' deprivation of liberty with forced labour for each offence and forfeiture of his property to the State. He was also stripped of his civil and political rights. On 17 September 1946 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. 65.  On 12 October 1994, after the independence of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions against Mr M. L. following the Public Prosecutor's request for protection of legality against the judgment. 66.  At an undetermined time, the applicant Mr Aleksander Majdič lodged a request for compensation for the forfeited property with the Ministry of Justice, which did not reply to it. 67.  On 22 December 1994, the applicant started proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia, the Vrhnika Municipality, the Logatec Municipality, the Vič-Rudnik Municipality, the Municipality Radlje ob Dravi and a company Liko Vrhnika in the then Ljubljana Basic Court, seeking restitution of the forfeited property and compensation for the property that could no longer be returned in natura, as well as compensation for loss of profits. In addition, he filed a motion for a temporary injunction in order to protect the property of the company Liko Vrhnika, in the process of privatisation. 68.  On 27 December 1994 the court issued the requested temporary injunction. 69.  On 27 March 1995 the applicant supplemented his request for restitution of forfeited property. 70.  On 4 April 1995 the court held a hearing and decided, inter alia, that neither locus standi of the applicant nor the district under whose jurisdiction the forfeited property fell was clearly established. 71.  On 16 May 1995 and 8 June 1995 the court held two more hearings. After the hearing held on 8 June 1995 the court granted the applicant 90 days to specify his restitution claims and the legal ground on which these were based. 72.  On 8 June 1995 the court granted in part the objection against the temporary injunction. The applicant, as well as the company Liko Vrhnika and another adversary party, appealed against this decision. 73.  On 29 August 1995 the applicant modified his claims. 74.  On 7 September 1995 the applicant again modified his claims and instituted proceedings against eleven additional parties. He also filed a new motion for a temporary injunction. 75.   On 25 September 1995 another individual joined the proceedings on the applicant's side. 76.  On 11 October 1995 the Ljubljana Higher Court requested the applicant to correct his submissions, and on 26 October 1995 the applicant requested the court to extend the deadline for submission of his corrections. 77.  On 27 March 1996 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal of the applicant against the decision on the temporary injunction and decided in favour of the appeal lodged by the company Liko Vrhnika. It set aside the decision of the first-instance court of 27 December 1994 and decided not to grant the temporary injunction. 78.  On 21 November 1996 the Supreme Court rejected the request for revision lodged by the applicant and upheld the decision of the Ljubljana Higher Court of 27 March 1996. 79.  On 18 March 1997 the first-instance court held a hearing and requested the applicant to furnish relevant documentation supporting his claims. 80.  At an undetermined time, but before 16 July 1998, the applicant requested the court not to continue with the proceedings until the Constitutional Court decided on his constitutional initiative, challenging the amendments to the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions. 81.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant withdrew in part his request for restitution of the forfeited property, and on 15 December 1999 he submitted a renewed request without one of the previous adversaries. 82.  On 27 January 2000 the court held a hearing and issued a partial decision, granting restitution of 58 plots of land to the applicant. 83.  On 6 April 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the Republic of Slovenia and the Farmland and Forest Fund of the Republic of Slovenia (Sklad kmetijskih zemljišč in gozdov Republike Slovenije) and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 84.  On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the adversaries' request for revision and upheld the decision of the first- and second-instance courts. 85.  On 10 February 2004 the first-instance court requested the applicant to supplement his submissions relating to the rest of his claims for restitution of the forfeited property (about 150 plots of land) with the relevant supporting documentation, and on 15 March 2004 urged the applicant to respond. 86.  On 19 May 2005 the court appointed an expert in geodesy to make an assessment of the property that was still subject to the court proceedings. 87.  On 25 May 2006 the court held another hearing. 88.  The proceedings are pending.
Request for compensation for loss of profits 89.  On 24 November 1997 the applicant lodged a request for compensation for loss of profits, initially filed with the Ljubljana Basic Court, with the Ministry of Justice. According to the applicant's submissions, the Ministry failed to reply to the request. 90.  On 23 February 1998 the applicant filed a claim against the Republic of Slovenia with the Ljubljana District Court, seeking compensation for loss of profits in the amount of 11,904,823,000 Slovenian tolars (126,057,000 German marks). 91.  On 18 October 1999 the applicant requested the court not to continue the proceedings until the European Court of Human Right had decided upon the present application. 92.  On 29 March 2002 the court recommended the parties to seek an out-of-court settlement and placed itself at their disposal to mediate, which was refused by both parties. 93.  On 14 June 2005 the applicant submitted to the court a statement, in which he declared that he would under no circumstances claim the time lapsed while waiting for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights as an excessive delay in the domestic proceedings. 94.  On 5 July 2005 and 18 August 2005 the Republic of Slovenia objected to the proposal of the applicant for a temporary stay of the proceedings. 95.  On 30 September 2005 the court held a hearing, at which it dismissed the applicant's request to stay the proceedings until the European Court of Human Rights had decided upon his application and issued a judgment. The applicant appealed against this decision. 96.  On 22 March 2006 and 6 July 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court returned the case file to the first-instance court for rectification. 97.  On 13 September 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court partially allowed the applicant's appeal and remitted the case in part to the first-instance court for re-examination. 98.  On 7 February 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing. 99.  The proceedings are still pending.