Search
document

Document text Analytics

M.L. v. SLOVENIA

Doc ref: 33764/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3801

Document date: July 2, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

M.L. v. SLOVENIA

Doc ref: 33764/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3801

Document date: July 2, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 33764/96

by M. L.

against Slovenia

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 26 September 1996

by M. L. against Slovenia and registered on 13 November 1996 under file

No. 33764/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovenian citizen, born in 1935, and residing

in Portoroz.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

In May 1977 the applicant got a job as a croupier at the socially

owned Casino in Portoroz.

After independence of Slovenia in 1991 the draft law on

privatizing casinos was published. Worried about the dangers of the

proposed privatisation the applicant kept warning the Parliament and

the public that the casinos would fall into the hands of former

political structures to the detriment of the society.

In May 1993 the applicant published an article in the newspaper

Delo and weekly magazine Mladina on events in the field of gambling.

Due to some statements which allegedly insulted the managers of the

Casino, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him. On

12 July 1993 the employer`s Disciplinary Commission decided to

terminate his employment. This was confirmed by the second instance

Disciplinary Commission in August 1993. The applicant has been

unemployed since August 1993.

In December 1993 the applicant appealed to the Postojna Labour

Court (Delovno sodisce). The Court on 1 February 1994 quashed the

Disciplinary Commission`s decision and ruled that the employer should

reengage the applicant and at the same time recognize all rights from

employment, including his salary, as if he had been working.

The employer appealed against the above decision of the Labour

Court. On 26 October 1995 the Higher Labour and Social Court (Visje

delovno in socialno sodisce) in Ljubljana quashed a decision and

returned the matter to the first instance, namely to the Postojna

Labour Court.

On 10 December 1996 the first instance court again decided in

applicant`s favour. It found no lawful grounds for the termination of

the applicant`s employment.

The company again appealed against the decision, apparently

because the applicant did not agree to confirm in writing that he would

cease to publish articles about the company in the media.

The case is now pending before the Higher Labour and Social Court

in Ljubljana.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about

the length of proceedings, as he has been unemployed for nearly four

years without any salary to live on. He claims that the proceedings are

being deliberately lengthened to hurt and punish him for publishing his

opinions in the media.

The applicant also invokes Article 10 of the Convention in that

he was penalised for expressing his opinions while even, as stated by

the first instance court, the texts written were only about the

situation in the casino business generally and have not insulted anyone

personally.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of proceedings under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), as far as relevant, provides as

follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of

any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair

and public hearing within a reasonable time ..."

The Commission first recalls that the date of ratification of the

Convention and the recognition of a right to individual petition by

Slovenia is 28 June 1994. The relevant period for the Commission is

therefore three years, although the overall proceedings have lasted

nearly three years and six months to date.

The Commission also recalls that employment disputes require

special diligence (Eur. Court HR, Ruotolo v. Italy judgment of

27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, para. 17). In the present

case however, the courts have on three occasions decided on the merits

of the case, which is now pending before the second instance court.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the length

of proceedings does not exceed the reasonable time provided for by

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant also complains that his dismissal constitutes a

breach of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

The Commission is not, however, called upon to decide whether the

facts alleged by the applicant disclose an appearance of a violation

of that provision. Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, "the

Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies

have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law". The Commission notes that the proceedings are still

pending before the Higher Labour and Social Court in Ljubljana and no

particular circumstances are disclosed which could exempt the applicant

from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for

non-exhaustion under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant