FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39597/98
by Ewa BISKUPSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 26 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsE. Palm,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 July 1997,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ewa Biskupska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Warsaw. She is not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government are represented by Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a civil servant at the Office of the Council of Ministers (Urząd Rady Ministrów). In 1992 the Office informed its employees about a possibility to buy a flat in the housing co-operative with which it had concluded an agreement. In view of a large number of candidates the Office decided that preference would be given to those who would undertake to make the flats at that time occupied by them available to the Office. The applicant submitted her application. In November 1993 the co-operative allocated her a flat. However, the costs of construction she had to cover were much higher than those provided for in the agreement between the Office and the housing co-operative. The applicant also learnt that out of 10 candidates who had been allocated new flats she was the only one to have made the previous flat available to the Office of the Council of Ministers.
On 13 July 1995 the applicant filed with the Warszawa-Mokotów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action against the Office of the Council of Ministers and the housing co-operative. In her action she requested, inter alia, that a new flat be granted to her, submitting that the area of the one allocated to her allegedly differed from the area indicated in the decision granting it to her. The applicant also claimed damages for losses allegedly sustained by her as a result of the increase of the construction costs.
On 18 July 1995 the District Court declared its lack of jurisdiction over the case and transmitted it to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
On 23 September 1995 the court ordered the applicant to indicate the value of her claim (wartość przedmiotu sporu). On 5 October 1995 the court again ordered her to indicate that value, considering that the information provided by her in reply to the previous court order was not satisfactory. In her letter of 16 October 1995 the applicant indicated the value of her claim. On 8 November 1995 she was again ordered to provide certain information concerning the value of the claim. On 23 November 1995 she submitted the relevant information.
On 27 November 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court, having examined the applicant’s request, exempted her partially from the court fees. She appealed against that decision. On 27 February 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed her appeal.
On 13 May 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for free legal assistance, considering that at that stage of the proceedings legal assistance was not necessary. The court noted that neither the circumstances of the case, nor the applicant’s financial situation would call for granting her a legal-aid lawyer. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 19 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.
On 9 October 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing. On the same day the defendant co-operative lodged a counter-claim against the applicant.
In the pleadings of 15 December 1996 the applicant’s lawyer modified her action and raised additional claims, inter alia, for compensation for the allegedly deceitful taking over of her previous flat by the Office of the Council of Ministers.
On 30 July 1997 the applicant requested an interim measure. On 13 August 1997 the court dismissed her request.
On 19 January 1998 the applicant filed another request for an interim measure. On 23 January 1998 the court dismissed it. The applicant appealed against that decision and requested exemption from the court fees relating to that appeal.
On 24 March 1998 the court held a hearing.
On 3 August 1998 the defendant co-operative’s lawyer requested the court not to fix hearings between 15 September and 15 October 1998 because of his vacation plans.
On 30 September 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 January 1998.
On 17 February 1999 the applicant submitted a request for legal assistance, stating that she had not been able to contact a lawyer chosen by her.
At the hearing held on 9 June 1999 the court ordered an expert opinion concerning the construction costs.
On 2 July 1999 it requested the Office of the President of the Council of Ministers to submit documentation concerning the financing of the construction of the applicant’s house. On 29 December 1999 the court repeated its request.
On 14 January 2000 the Office informed the court that it did not possess any such documentation.
On 19 January and 3 April 2001 the court held hearings.
On 22 February 2001, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the Ministry of Justice admitted that the proceedings were lengthy and informed her that they had been taken under the President of the Regional Court’s administrative supervision.
On 10 April 2001 the applicant modified her claim and requested exemption from court fees.
The proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 13 July 1995 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted approximately 6 years and 8 months.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy