CASE OF JATAIRWAYS, A.D. BEOGRAD 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. On 4 December 1991 proceedings before the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour were instituted against the applicant company by forty-seven of its former employees, following their dismissal from work. 5. By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court held one hearing. 6. A hearing was scheduled for 8 July 1998 but the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court was unable to serve the summons to the applicant company as the latter changed its address without informing the court. The court therefore ordered that all further court’s writings would be served on the applicant company by a publication on the court’s notice board. 7. On 30 June 1999 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court held a hearing in the absence of the applicant company and issued its decision, deciding that the dismissal of the plaintiffs by the applicant company was illegal and ordering the applicant company to acknowledge their rights from the employment contract and to pay them outstanding salaries. The decision was served on the applicant company on 27 October 1999 through diplomatic channels. The applicant company appealed. 8. On 17 January 2001 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the first instance court’s decision in the part concerning the illegality of the dismissal, annulled the remainder of the decision and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 9. In the remitted proceedings the court’s writings were initially served on the applicant company. Later on, the applicant company authorized a Slovenian lawyer, M. J., to represent it in the proceedings. 10. On 17 December 2004 the first instance court held a hearing and decided to examine the claims of twenty-two of the plaintiffs separately from the remaining claims. On the same date it issued its decision on the claims of the remaining plaintiffs and upheld their claim concerning the payment of the outstanding salaries. The applicant company appealed. 11. On 15 March 2005 the Higher Court requested the applicant company’s representative to present his power of attorney. 12. On 31 May 2005 the plaintiffs filed a motion for interim order. 13. On 8 June 2005 the court made the interim order requested. 14. On 20 June 2005 the applicant lodged an objection against the interim order. 15. On 18 July 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s objection. The applicant appealed. 16. On 14 October 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court quashed the decision of 18 July 2005 and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 17. On 22 October 2005 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court again dismissed the applicant’s objection against the interim order. The applicant appealed. 18. On 15 December 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, annulled the first-instance court’s decision of 8 June 2005 and dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for an interim order. 19. On 9 November 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court partially upheld the applicant company’s appeal against the decision of 17 December 2004 and modified the decision of the first instance court in the part concerning the payment of interest and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The applicant company and the plaintiffs lodged an appeal on points of law. 20. On 6 February 2007 the applicant company was reminded by the court to pay the court fee for lodging an appeal on points of law. 21. On 28 February 2007 the applicant company was reminded by the court to pay the court fee for its reply to the appeal on points of law lodged by the plaintiffs. 22. On 25 February 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals on points of law and upheld the decision of the Higher Court. The applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal. 23. On 14 April 2008 the applicant company was again reminded to pay the outstanding court fees. 24. On 7 July 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on its representative on 20 August 2008.