we also proposed a careful assessment of warnings that certain proposed amendments to the KZ-1 may place (further) restrictions on media activities or freedom of expression. reduce the number of human rights’ violations, and contribute to establishing effective legal remedies available in practice. Lengthy duration of court proceedings Lengthy decision making on an expediting legal remedy The data on the judiciary showing that the number of important and also other unresolved cases decreased again in 2015 are certainly encouraging, since the time expected for resolving cases is also shortened. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman also discussed complaints in 2015 which referred to lengthy court proceedings. As mentioned above, these complaints constituted one fourth of all complaints involving court proceedings. According to our findings, court backlogs are still one of the main issues facing the Slovenian judiciary. In few cases, we proposed that certain court presidents verify as per the type, nature and importance of a case if there were reasons for possibly classifying cases differently in their order of resolving cases than was determined relating to their caseload. A party to court proceedings – a participant according to an act governing non-contentious proceedings and an injured party in criminal proceedings – has the right that their rights, duties and accusations against them are considered by a court without undue delay. The protection of the right to trial without undue delay is governed by the Protection of the Right to Trial without Undue Delay Act (ZVPSBNO). This Act prescribes the rules of proceedings, (expediting) legal remedies and measures in cases of alleged and established violations of the right to trial without undue delay. In 2015, the public was disturbed by the data on the share of the ECHR’s rulings against Slovenia. These data were not surprising to us, although they are of great concern and demand thorough analysis. The opinion of the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Slovenia, which is the attorney of the state, is important in this case since it has the best insight into the cases brought against the Republic of Slovenia and the subsequent rulings of the ECHR. We must not ignore the fact that the system of human rights and freedoms’ protection introduced by the ECHR demands the persistent and sometimes lengthy implementation of fundamental standards of human rights’ protection in individual countries. That respecting human rights is expensive, but disrespecting them is even more expensive, is true with regard to rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly concerning systemic and mass violations. We also find that many recommendations which the Ombudsman made to the state or its competent bodies over the years of its operations with regard to violations of human rights which were later determined by the ECHR were overlooked, since their observance would certainly have reduced the number of successful lawsuits and thus spared the country the payment of large sums in compensation. We understand that amendments to legislation or judicial and other practices cannot be implemented quickly and with no suitable financial resources, but this is nevertheless a necessary investment in improving the enforcement of human rights and the country’s reputation at home and abroad. We believe that Slovenia needs a national programme to determine measures to eliminate systemic problems, and measures to 64 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 Proceedings before labour and social courts In spite of the expectations of the Ministry of Justice that the situation in the courts’ work would improve, we continued to observe problems in this field in 2015, which are illustrated with the cases described below. Example: Twenty months for scheduling the main hearing in a social matter A complainant informed the Human Rights Ombudsman about the undue duration of a social case, ref. no. V Ps 2240/2013, at Ljubljana Labour and Social Court. Since he had obtained information from the relevant court that it took approximately two years for the case to be heard, he turned to the Ombudsman for help. We submitted our inquiry on the matter to Ljubljana Labour and Social Court, which explained that a lawsuit against the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia had been filed in the complainant’s case on 24 July 2013 with respect to the recognition of other rights arising from health insurance, and the defendant had responded to the lawsuit on 19 September 2013. On 24 February 2015, the case was re-assigned to another district judge, who wrote in her report that the first main hearing was scheduled for 21 April 2015. The court explained that the cases were being resolved according to the order in which they were filed at the court, and priority was given only to cases determined as such by the Court Rules or the annual work programme of courts. Disputes on ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 65 2.4 JUSTICE 2.4 JUSTICE The data on compensation paid due to the violation of the right to judgement within a reasonable time show that problems in the field of ensuring judgements within a reasonable time still exist, including judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Of thirteen judgements issued by the relevant court against the Republic of Slovenia in 2015 in which violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) were established, as many as seven judgements referred to the violation of Article 6 of the ECHR, i.e. the violation of the right to a fair trial and thus the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time. The speed and efficiency of criminal proceedings are particularly in the interests of the injured party as the victim of a criminal offence. This is relevant to considerations of sexual abuse and the physical, psychological and social effects which such criminal offence have on the victim. Lengthy proceedings in such cases cannot be understood as victim-friendly conduct. Unfortunately, Slovenia was again found to be in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR in the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Y. v. Slovenia of 28 May 2015. In her case against the state, the applicant emphasised that criminal proceedings relating to sexual assaults against her took an unreasonably long time, that they were biased and that she was subject to several traumatic experiences during the proceedings, which encroached upon her personal integrity. The Court established with concern that the proceedings were marked by several lengthy periods of complete standstill, which according to the Court were impossible to reconcile with a request for a prompt discussion of the case. It also assessed that the manner in which the criminal proceedings had been conducted in this case did not provide a suitable balance between the rights and interests of the injured party, as ensured by the Convention, and the rights of defence. It particularly stressed that the first and most important duty of the presiding judge was to ensure protection of, and respect for, the personal integrity of the injured party. The Ombudsman already emphasised the need to consistently observe the deadlines (e.g. in the 2010 annual report) within which actions must be taken which are determined on the basis of applicable expediting legal remedies as per the ZVPSBNO. We also considered a case in 2015 in which the complainant was certain that a (district) court was unduly delaying decision making. On the basis of our advice, he first filed a request for supervision and then another expediting legal remedy (motion for a deadline) which the president of the higher court considered significantly longer than determined by the Act, the purpose of which is the protection of the right to trial without undue delay under Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. In paragraph five of Article 11, the ZVPSBNO stipulates that a president of a court must decide on a motion for a deadline within 15 days after its receipt. In this particular case, the complainant filed the motion for a deadline at the beginning of March, whereas the legal remedy was granted only at the beginning of May, i.e. roughly after two months from when it had been received; whereby, it was also revealed that this was not the result of the fact that the president of the court which discussed the case had failed to immediately forward the motion for a deadline together with the case file and the file of the request for supervision to the president of the higher court as determined in Article 10 of the Act. When examining the case, we explicitly asked the president of the higher court to clarify why the motion for a deadline had not been discussed yet by that time, but we received no explanation. The complainant submitted his correspondence with his attorney, which stated that the office of the president of the higher court had explained “that the lack of staff posed a problem, since there is no vice-president of the court and deadlines are thus delayed”. Regarding the purpose and significance of expediting legal remedies according to the ZVPSBNO, the Ombudsman repeats here the recommendation made in 2010 that the courts should always do everything possible to ensure the actual observance of deadlines, which in this regard were set for making decisions on expediting legal remedies as per the ZVPSBNO.