CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG29
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 2012
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1002DEC003856506
- Date
- 2 octobre 2012
- Publication
- 2 octobre 2012
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 38565/06 Marija ŠTORMAN against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2   October 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 September 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Marija Štorman, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec. She is represented before the Court by Mr   B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27 June 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court. Between 9 March 2005 and 11 July 2006 the Court held two hearings. On 21 August 2006 the first-instance court rendered a judgment. The applicant appealed. On 18 April 2007 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court rejected her appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 May 2007. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the undue length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. THE LAW The Court notes that the proceedings were terminated on 15 May 2007, when the second-instance decision was served on the applicant, which is more than three months after the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay became operational. The applicant therefore had at her disposal domestic remedies, which she failed to exhaust. Having regards to the Court’s well-established case-law (see Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 110, 3 May 2007 and Nezirovič v. Slovenia, n o.   16400/06, (dec.), 18 November 2008, §§ 27-42) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under Article   35   §   3 of the Convention for being manifestly ill-founded. Thus, the application must be rejected under Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   PresidentCitations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 29
- Date
- 2 octobre 2012
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1002DEC003856506
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral