EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 24559/94
Lechoslaw GIBAS
against
Poland
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 4 September 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. The application
(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
C. The present Report
(paras. 11-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 16-40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 41-56) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
A. Complaint declared admissible
(para. 41). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
B. Point at issue
(para. 42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 43-55). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
CONCLUSION
(para. 56). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . .9
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicant is a Polish citizen, born in 1928 and residing in
Sosnowiec.
3. The application is directed against Poland. The respondent
Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Krzysztof Drzewicki,
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. The case concerns the length of civil proceedings. The applicant
invokes Article 6 of the Convention.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 14 December 1993 and registered
on 7 July 1994.
6. On 12 October 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided,
pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give
notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite
the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and
merits.
7. The Government's observations were submitted on 20 February 1995
two months after the fixed time-limit. On 28 February 1995 the
Commission (Second Chamber) decided to accept the Government's
observations submitted after the time-limit. The applicant replied on
26 April 1995. On 11 April 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber)
granted the applicant legal aid.
8. On 6 September 1995 the Commission declared the application
admissible.
9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent
to the parties on 20 September 1995 and they were invited to submit
such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.
10. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed
itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the
Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement
can be effected.
C. The present Report
11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second
Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after
deliberations and votes, the following members being present:
Ms. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
12. The text of this Report was adopted on 4 September 1996 by the
Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the
Convention.
13. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Convention, is:
(i) to establish the facts, and
(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose
a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under
the Convention.
14. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application
is annexed hereto.
15. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the
documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the
Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
16. In 1951 the Kraków Regional Health Department seized property in
Rajcza owned by the applicant's mother. The property was subsequently
used as a sanatorium for children. Eventually the applicant's mother
concluded an agreement with the sanatorium to the effect that the rent
due was reduced by 50 per cent; in exchange the sanatorium undertook
to make all necessary repairs at the property. Apparently in 1958 an
administrative decision allocated the property to the sanatorium.
17. On 8 December 1977 the applicant, apparently as heir to his
mother, filed an action against the sanatorium with the Zywiec District
Court requesting that repairs be made as provided for by the agreement.
The case was later transmitted to the Bielsko Biala Regional Court (S*d
Wojewódzki).
18. In October 1978 the applicant complained to the President of the
Bielsko Biala Regional Court about the fact that no hearing had been
held.
19. On 14 November 1978 the sanatorium instituted administrative
proceedings requesting the expropriation of the applicant's property.
As a result, in December 1978 the proceedings were suspended.
Apparently, the decision to expropriate was given on a certain later
date. On 28 July 1983 the Minister of Administration quashed the
expropriation. On 20 November 1983 the applicant requested resumption
of the proceedings. On 6 February 1984 he complained to the President
of the Court that no decision had been taken. On 24 February 1984 the
President informed the applicant that the decision would be taken at
a hearing scheduled for 14 March 1984.
20. On 14 March 1984 the proceedings were resumed and on
20 March 1984 the applicant filed a memorial extending his claim. He
sought compensation for the depreciation of the property and requested
that it be returned to him. On 24 August 1984 the Court transmitted
a copy of the memorial to the defendant. On 15 October 1984 the
applicant complained to the President of the Court that the Court did
not act diligently and thus the proceedings did not progress. There
was no reply to this letter.
21. On 16 November 1984 the Bielsko Biala Regional Court decided to
suspend the proceedings as the defendant had again submitted a motion
for expropriation of the real property in question to the municipal
administration. The applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court
(S*d Najwyzszy) against the decision of adjournment; he also requested
the Bielsko Biala Regional Court to be exempted from paying the court
fee. On 8 December 1984 the Regional Court dismissed the latter
request. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme
Court.
22. On 20 November 1984 the applicant complained of the length of the
proceedings to the Minister of Justice. Upon the Minister's request,
the President of the Court informed the applicant on 29 December 1984
that the case file would be sent to the Supreme Court to enable it to
consider two appeals.
23. On 5 May 1985 the applicant wrote a letter to the President of
the Bielsko Biala Regional Court, complaining that the Court's
decisions were not duly served on the defendant, thus causing
unnecessary delays.
24. On 10 June 1985 the President replied that the file had not yet
been sent to the Supreme Court as the applicant had failed to submit
the required two copies of his appeal against the decision to suspend
the proceedings.
25. On 4 July 1985 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of
16 November 1984 to suspend the proceedings as the administrative
proceedings relating to expropriation had not been instituted since.
The Court found that the defendant had submitted his motion to an
authority which was not competent to deal with this request.
26. On 10 March 1986 the applicant complained to the Minister of
Justice of the length of the proceedings and of lack of diligence on
the part of the Court. On 20 June 1986, upon request of the Minister
of Justice, the President of the Court informed the applicant that the
decision would be given after the judge had come back from holidays,
i.e. after 15 August 1986. On 17 November 1986 the applicant
complained to the Minster of Justice as there was no progress in the
case since the last hearing on 19 June 1986.
27. On 31 December 1986 the President of the Court informed the
applicant that the case file would be sent to the Supreme Court as the
applicant and court experts had appealed against a decision on the
experts' remuneration.
28. On 7 December 1987 the applicant complained to the Council of
State and to the Parliament about the length of the proceedings. These
complaints were transmitted to the President of the Bielsko Biala
Regional Court for reply. On 25 January 1988 the President informed
the applicant that the proceedings would be terminated as soon as the
Court had heard one last witness and the parties.
29. On 30 April 1988 the Bielsko Biala Regional Court suspended the
proceedings. On 6 October 1988 the Supreme Court quashed this
decision. The Supreme Court considered the suspension unfounded as the
other proceedings referred to by the Regional Court were not related
to the proceedings in question.
30. On 28 November 1988 the applicant complained to the Minister of
Justice. In his reply of 6 February 1989 the Minister admitted that
the proceedings were too long, but refused to take any steps in order
to accelerate them, as these proceedings were already under supervision
of the President of the Bielsko Biala Regional Court. On 20 February
1989 the applicant reiterated his complaint, pointing out that this
supervision proved to be ineffective.
31. On 22 November 1989 the Bielsko Biala Regional Court pronounced
a partial judgment, ordering the defendant to restore the property in
question to the applicant. The defendant appealed against this
decision. On 30 August 1990 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and
referred the case back to the Bielsko Biala Regional Court. The
Supreme Court considered that the Court had failed to establish
sufficiently the facts of the case, in particular as to the character
and contents of the parties' rights and obligations.
32. On 8 January 1991 the Bielsko Biala Regional Court pronounced a
partial judgment, ordering the defendant to leave the property and
restore it to the applicant.
33. On 10 October 1992 the applicant extended his claim, requesting
that the defendant reimburse half of the rent which he had retained.
In May 1993 the judge rapporteur was changed.
34. On 22 November 1993 the Court dismissed the defendant's request
for an expert opinion by the Kraków Polytechnic and ordered the expert
O. to prepare an expert opinion.
35. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 9 April 1994 the
Bielsko Biala Regional Court rejected the appeal as no appeal against
this decision was possible. At the same date the Court changed its
decision of 22 November 1993, dismissed O. as an expert as he had
failed to prepare his report and ordered the Kraków Polytechnic to
prepare an expert opinion.
36. On 21 October 1994 this expert opinion was submitted to the
Court. The next hearing was fixed for 8 February 1995.
37. On 22 June 1995 the Bielsko Biala Regional Court pronounced a
judgment awarding compensation to the applicant. Both parties to the
proceedings filed an appeal against this judgment with the Katowice
Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny). On 13 July 1995 this judgment was
served on the applicant.
38. On 20 July 1995 the applicant requested that the judgment be
completed by a decision as to certain claims on which the court had
allegedly failed to rule.
39. On 5 September 1995 the Bielsko Biala Regional Court rejected the
applicant's request considering that the applicant had failed to comply
with the seven days' time-limit for submission of a request to have the
judgment completed and to invoke grounds which would justify this
delay. On 19 September 1995 the applicant appealed against this
decision. On 22 February 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed
this appeal.
40. The hearing on the merits before the Katowice Court of Appeal was
fixed for 22 April 1996, but eventually was not held.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaint declared admissible
41. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint
relating to the length of the civil proceedings.
B. Point at issue
42. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings
complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
43. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as
relevant, provides as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time
by (a) tribunal ..."
44. The applicant submits that it was partly the length of the
proceedings in itself which made the case more complex than it had
originally been since, as a result thereof, new elements emerged which
had to be considered. The Court did not order an expert opinion until
1989, and then only at the applicant's insistence. The applicant
denies that his claim was satisfied for the most part by the
restitution of property by virtue of the 1991 judgment, as the property
had deteriorated and cannot be put to any use since then. A final
decision concerning the claims for compensation for damage to the
property has not been pronounced yet. The change of judge rapporteur
in May 1993 also contributed to the further prolongation of the
proceedings.
45. The applicant submits that he had to change and extend his claim
in the course of the proceedings, the last time on 10 October 1992,
mostly on account of the lapse of time since the proceedings had been
instituted and because new damage done to the property had come to
light. Regard must be had to the fact that many applicable laws
changed since the beginning of the proceedings, which affected the
relationship between the applicant and the defendant. No measures
taken by the authorities as a result of his complaints about the length
of the proceedings proved effective. The applicant submits that the
overall length of the proceedings exceeds any notion of reasonableness.
46. The Government submit that the case was very complex. Thus
expert opinions were necessary to assess the extent of the
deterioration of the buildings. The applicant's conduct also
contributed to the length of the proceedings, as he appealed against
many decisions. In particular, he filed an appeal against the partial
judgment of 1989. The authorities took many measures which accelerated
the conduct of the proceedings. The applicant's claims were for the
most part satisfied in the judgment of 1991. In May 1993 the judge
rapporteur had to be replaced, as the previous judge had ceased to work
in the Bielsko Biala Regional Court.
47. The Commission observes that the proceedings complained of began
on 8 December 1977 when the applicant lodged his action with the Zywiec
District Court. The proceedings are currently pending before the
Katowice Court of Appeal.
48. The Commission recalls that the period to be considered started
on 1 May 1993, the date on which the recognition by Poland of the right
of individual petition took effect. The Commission further recalls
that in cases where it can, by reason of its competence ratione
temporis, only examine part of the proceedings, it can take into
account, in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the
proceedings at the beginning of the period under consideration (see No.
7984/77, Dec. 11.7.79, D.R. 16 p. 92). Therefore, the proceedings have
lasted about eighteen years and nine months to date, out of which the
period to which the Commission's examination relates is three years and
four months.
49. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria:
the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct
of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo
v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12,
para. 30).
50. The Commission considers that the case, which was originally not
particularly complex, has grown to be so in part as a result of the
lapse of time as new circumstances affecting the applicant's claim came
to light. Moreover, the only issue which remains to be determined
since the partial judgment of 8 January 1991 is the sum of compensation
due to the applicant for deterioration of the property which cannot be
regarded as being a particularly complex issue.
51. As regards the conduct of the parties, the Commission finds that
the applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the
length of the proceedings.
52. As regards the conduct of the authorities the Commission notes
that in May 1993 the judge rapporteur was changed. There was a long
interval of ten months between hearings before the Bielsko Biala
Regional Court (9 April 1994 - 8 February 1995). Furthermore, on
22 June 1995 this Court pronounced the first instance judgment in these
proceedings and on 20 July 1995 the applicant filed a request that the
judgment be completed. On 5 September 1995 the Bielsko Biala Regional
Court rejected this request, considering that it had been filed after
the expiry of the time-limit. It was on 22 February 1996 that the
Katowice Court of Appeal upheld this rejection. There was a period of
inactivity of five months between these decisions. On the whole, it
took eight months (22 June 1995 - 22 February 1996) to decide on this
procedural issue. The next hearing on the merits before the Katowice
Court of Appeal scheduled for 22 April 1996 was not held. Thus there
was no progress as regards the merits of the case since 22 June 1995.
The case is still pending before this Court.
53. The Commission further notes that in November 1993 the Court
appointed O. as an expert. Eventually the Court found it necessary to
revoke him as he had failed to submit his expert opinion and appointed
specialists from Kraków Polytechnic. The Commission recalls that a
court shall ensure that an expert appointed by the court performs his
task expeditiously (Eur. Court H.R., Capuano v. Italy judgment of
25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 13, para. 30).
54. In view of these circumstances the Commission considers that in
the period since 1 May 1993 it cannot be said that the authorities
pursued the case with the diligence required for a good administration
of justice. They are therefore mainly responsible for the length of
the proceedings.
55. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having
regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission
considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
CONCLUSION
56. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy