Relating to the time that passed in this case from the filing of the lawsuit to the scheduling of the first main hearing, we considered the complaint founded, since it took the court almost twenty months to schedule the first main hearing. The overburdening of courts with cases and the shortage of personnel are not, and cannot be, excuses for lengthy judicial proceedings. While observing the provision of Article 50 of the Court Rules, which stipulates that cases in labour and social disputes must be resolved in six months from the filing of the case, the relevant case was subject to a court backlog and, in our opinion, also constituted a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay, which is an element of the right to judicial protection as per paragraph one of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, or Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 6.5-3/2015 Example First main hearing scheduled almost 21 months after a lawsuit is filed in a labour dispute A complainant wrote to the Ombudsman due to the lengthy handling of her lawsuit, which she filed in a labour dispute in 2013 and was recorded at Maribor Labour Court under ref. no. Pd 509/2013. She stated that she had received a reply from the court, no. Pd 509/2013 of 27 August 2014, to the request for priority consideration of the case, stating that the case had not (yet) been scheduled for consideration. Some six months later, the complainant’s attorney received the same reply (of 17 February 2015). The complainant also stressed that some of the actions for damages filed by her co-workers, who filed their suits against the (same) defendant later than her (i.e. after 9 September 2013), had already been decided on. Due to the lengthy proceedings, the complainant was also worried that she would be unable to recover anything from the defendant, since the defendant was supposedly withdrawing from the Slovenian market. 2.4 JUSTICE We made inquiries at Maribor Labour Court, which explained that the complainant had filed her lawsuit on 25 September 2013, and the court had received the statement of defence on 15 November 2013. The dispute involved the payment of allowances for working conditions, compensation for unused annual leave and payment of damages. According to the content, this was a non-priority case, for which a hearing of 22 June 2015 was scheduled on 23 March 2015. In its reply, the court also clarified that it had been decided, following a review of the order of cases to be heard by the judge to whom the case was allocated, that the judge was consistently observing the order of discussing cases, and that the court was striving to schedule the settlement hearing or the first main hearing in priority cases within two months of receiving statements from the defence (and was also successful in doing so, according to the President of Maribor Labour Court). Since, according to the order of the court’s caseload, the hearing in the complainant’s case was scheduled on 23 March 2015, it was expected that her statement of claim would soon be resolved. While observing the provision of Article 50 of the Court Rules, which stipulates that cases in labour and social disputes must be resolved in six months from the when the case is filed, we found the relevant case an example of a court backlog, which also constituted a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay. On the basis of explanations provided by Maribor Labour Court, we expressed expectations in our reply to the complainant that the scheduled hearing would actually be conducted, and that the court would further consider her case on an ongoing and concentrated basis and resolve the matter within a reasonable time. The complainant has not informed us of the contrary. 6.5-8/2015 Quality of decision making Complainants’ dissatisfaction with court decisions in their cases was noted in as many as three quarters of complaints which referred directly to judicial proceedings. The Ombudsman is not (yet another) state authority established to assess the correctness of court decisions, i.e. correctness of the actual situation established or of the application of substantive and procedural law. Likewise, the Ombudsman is also not an authority which can affect the content of court decisions, since this would encroach on the independence and autonomy of decisions made by the judicial branch of power, which is not permitted by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. As per the Human Rights Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman may intervene in court matters only if it is established that the court unduly delays proceedings (that the rule on the order of resolving cases is not being observed, or if a violation of the provisions in a procedural act which ensure prompt and effective discussion and decision making in judicial proceedings is discovered) and in cases of evident abuse of authority. Claims of certain procedural errors, an incorrectly established actual situation or any other disagreements with court decisions in certain judicial proceedings are particularly the bases for application of legal remedies (ordinary and extraordinary), which are available to an individual as a party to proceedings in individual types of judicial proceedings. The legal system observes the fact that courts settle certain situations or disputes between parties only with the finality of a court decision. Thus, prior to issuing a final court decision, a repeated test of any previous decision at a higher instance is possible in order to eliminate possible judicial errors before a lower instance court and a correct final decision be made. The system enables claims concerning any errors before finality (by means of appeal or other ordinary legal remedy) and some claims may also be pursued after the finality of a court decision (by extraordinary legal remedies). Nevertheless, we emphasise again that judges (in particular) also have obligations and responsibilities. They are obliged to perform their work correctly, with fairness and responsibility, and ensure their judicial function is effectively implemented. A judge’s independence must not mean they are inviolable or non-culpable, because they must comply with the Constitution and the law. In our inquiries, we asked the court whether the complainant’s case would have already been scheduled for a hearing if observing indent four, point 3b of Article 7 of the Annual work programme of courts for 2015, which considered cases older than nine months as having relative priority. Since the complainant’s case had been filed with the court already 20 months ago, we assessed that as such it would (probably) already have been classified as (at least) a case with relative priority. Unfortunately, the court failed to respond to this question. In this regard, the Ministry of Justice emphasised that it is not permissible to intervene in judges’ independence in the performance of their judicial duties according to the Constitution due to the principle of multi-level judicial decision making. The organisation of courts is based on the principle of multi-level judicial decision making, as the organisational result of the constitutional right to a legal remedy. An autonomous and independent court bound by the Constitution and law decides on whether claims made by parties to judicial proceedings are founded. If parties disagree with courts’ decisions, they may protect their rights by seeking ordinary and extraordinary legal remedies with the competent judicial authorities as per the principle of multi-level judicial decision making and their right to a legal remedy. It is also clear that the regulations in force provide sufficient mechanisms to prevent abuses or deal with establish violations of judicial duties if these occur (ZSS and ZS). Court presidents have several tools with which they monitor the work of courts and judges. The PSP (business data warehousing) project is underway, which, as an interactive and dynamic tool, enables visual monitoring and data processing from the data warehouse, and is intended for monitoring operations in judicial proceedings on the basis of selected parameters (staff, transfer of cases, backlogs, performance, quality of work). The presidents of courts can thus verify the quality of judges’ work (assess judges’ service) more easily, and faster discussion (review of operations, supervisory appeal etc.) is also enabled through judicial management and with certain limitations. 66 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 While observing the time that passed in the relevant case since the filing of the lawsuit to scheduling of the first main hearing, the Ombudsman considered the complaint founded, because the first main hearing was scheduled by court almost 21 months after the action had been filed and 19 months after the statement of defence had been received. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 67 2.4 JUSTICE the recognition of other rights arising from health insurance were not considered priority cases, and the court was thus unable to consider the complainant’s case before other lawsuits that had been filed before his. As an additional reason for not considering the case sooner, the court also mentioned the shortage of personnel. In the critical period, the court was waiting for three vacant judges’ posts to be filled at the social department. The district judge who was allocated the case was appointed by the Judicial Council on 10 February 2015, and she scheduled the first main hearing in the complainant’s case soon after taking office.