CASE OF SOTOŠEK v. SLOVENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)
Angelika Nußberger;Helena Jäderblom
4. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana. 5. On 1 December 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against his employer, company K. and four further defendants. 6. On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia. 7. On 4 August 1994 the first defendant, company K. replied to the claim. 8. On 28 March 2003 the applicant was requested to supplement or amend his claim. 9. On 14 April 2003 the applicant lodged his submissions by which he withdrew the action against the second, third, fourth and fifth defendant and proposed to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction. 10. On 15 July 2003 the court stayed the proceedings against the second, third, fourth and fifth defendant. 11. On 23 September 2003 the Supreme Court issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s request to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction. 12. On 23 March 2004 the court adjourned the first main hearing at the request of both parties. 13. On 31 May 2004 the settlement hearing and the first main hearing were held. 14. On 24 June 2004 the second main hearing was held. 15. On 15 February 2005 the scheduled hearing was postponed at the applicant’s request. 16. Between 14 April 2005 and 14 September 2006 further four hearings were held. 17. On 21 September 2006 the Labour and Social Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim. Both parties appealed. 18. On 18 January 2007 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the appeals and issued a decision that an appeal on points of law would not be allowed in the present case. The applicant appealed. 19. On 24 April 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision that appeal on points of law was not allowed. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. 20. On 17 October 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal.