FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38811/97
by Stanisław GÓRA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 December 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrJ. Hedigan, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 December 1996 and registered on 28 November 1997,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish citizen, born in 1946 and living in Szamotuły, Poland.
The applicant was (or still is) involved in three sets of civil proceedings. The relevant facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.Proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd.
(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993
On 30 July 1987 the applicant sued the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative (Wielkopolska Spółdzielnia Ogrodnicza) before the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking damages for loss of profits he had incurred on account of having bought defective products (pepper seeds) from the co-operative.
On 21 September 1987 the court exempted him from court fees. At the hearing held on 3 November 1987 the court partly revoked the exemption granted.
On 3 November 1987 the court decided that the Polcomex Limited Liability Company (hereinafter Polcomex Ltd.) should be summoned and join the proceedings as a defendant. On 23 November 1987 Polcomex Ltd. filed its pleadings with the court.
On 4 January 1991 the applicant modified his claim.
On 4 March 1991 the court held a hearing. The next hearing (fixed for 5 April 1991) was cancelled.
On 15 February 1993 the court revoked the exemption from court fees which it had granted to the applicant. It considered that the basis for the exemption “had ceased to exist”.
(b)Facts after 1 May 1993
On 17 June 1993 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) upheld the decision to revoke the exemption from court fees.
On 30 December 1993 the applicant again modified his claim and applied for an exemption from court fees.
The court held a hearing on 21 February 1994. It ordered the applicant to pay the court fees due for the submission of the modified claim.
On 28 February 1994 the applicant again requested the court to exempt him from court fees. On 28 March 1994 the Poznań District Court rejected his application. On 1 April 1994 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 30 September 1994 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed his appeal.
On 8 November 1994 the applicant paid the required court fees.
On 7 January 1995 the applicant again modified his claim.
On 8 February 1995 the Poznań District Court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. It held a hearing on 8 March 1995.
On 28 April 1995 the applicant again modified his claim.
On 18 September 1995 the Wielkopolska Gardening co-operative filed its pleadings with the court.
On 12 February 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Skierniewice Market Gardening Institute (Instytut Warzywnictwa). The expert report was made on 19 May 1997 and, shortly afterwards, was submitted to the court. On 2 July 1997 the court ordered that fresh expert evidence be obtained.
On some other later date, on the Poznań District Court’s request, the Skierniewice District Court heard evidence from the expert.
On 21 January 1998 the Poznań District Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim as unfounded.
On 18 March 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment.
On 10 July 1998 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
In a letter of 23 August 1999, the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were pending.
2. Proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative
(a)Facts prior to 1 May 1993
On 22 September 1988 the applicant sued the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative (Rolniczy Kombinat Spółdzielczy) in the Poznań Regional Court, seeking compensation for the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land he had bought from one of the Co-operative’s members.
On 4 November 1988 the court exempted the applicant from paying 50% of the court fees.
On 27 February 1989 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. In June 1990 the court ordered that a second expert report be obtained. In October 1991 the expert submitted the relevant report to the court.
On an unknown date the applicant modified his claim. On 26 May 1992 the court ordered the applicant to pay 50% of the court fees due for that modification. On 1 June 1992 the applicant asked the court to grant him a general exemption from court fees.
(b)Facts after 1 May 1993
On 7 July 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request. On 26 July 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected his appeal against that decision as being lodged outside the prescribed time-limit. On 8 October 1993, on the applicant’s appeal, the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the Regional Court’s decision. It considered that the applicant had lodged his appeal on time. Accordingly, his appeal was transferred to the appellate court for decision.
On 8 October 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal, ruling on that appeal, upheld the decision of the Poznań Regional Court of 7 July 1993.
On 6 November 1993 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay 50% of the court fees due for submission of the modified claim.
On 15 November 1993 the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed. The Regional Court referred his request to the Poznań Court of Appeal which later sent it back to the Regional Court. The applicant submits that the courts declined to rule on his application for the proceedings to be stayed.
On 21 December 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 7 July 1993 as the question of granting him a general exemption from the court fees had already been decided.
On 21 March 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Poznań Regional Court and made an application to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) for the case to be transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court. He also sued the State Treasury (the Poznań Regional Court) for compensation.
On 25 May 1994 the Supreme Court referred both the challenge of 21 March 1994 and the compensation claim to the Poznań Regional Court, which was the court competent to deal with the subject-matter.
On 8 November 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing. It granted the applicant a general exemption from court fees.
On 4 February 1995 the applicant modified his claim.
On 1 December 1995 the court held a hearing. It ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Poznań Agricultural Academy (Akademia Rolnicza w Poznaniu).
On 13 and on 18 December 1995 respectively the co-operative and the applicant requested that certain witnesses be summoned.
On 18 October 1996 the court again ordered that the Poznań Agricultural Academy prepare an expert report but the Dean of the Agricultural Department refused to do so. Subsequently, the court ordered that experts of the Poznań University draw a report. However, the experts did not prepare the report requested.
On an unspecified later date the court ordered that the Sielinko Centre for Agricultural Assistance (Ośrodek Doradztwa Rolniczego Sielinko) prepare an expert report. On 1 August 1997 the report was submitted to the court.
On 2 July 1997 the applicant complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. In a letter of an unknown date in August 1997, the President of the Regional Court admitted that the applicant’s complaint was justified. He informed the applicant about the difficulties which the court had faced in finding an institution which could prepare the relevant expert report. Lastly, he assured the applicant that he would supervise the course of the proceedings.
On 4 August 1997 the court fixed the next hearing for 5 November 1997. It was subsequently cancelled. The next hearing was fixed for 21 November 1997. The court held further hearings on 27 March and on 13 October 1998 respectively.
On 27 October 1998 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment. It partly granted the applicant’s claim.
On 7 December 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Poznań Court of Appeal.
On 11 June 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
On 12 June 1999 the applicant lodged a notice of cassation appeal.
It is not clear whether the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgment with the Supreme Court.
3. Proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative
(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993
On 22 August 1988 the applicant sued the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative (Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych) before the Poznań Regional Court, seeking damages and claiming that his plantation of cabbage and cauliflower had been destroyed, and that the plot intended for growing cucumbers had been polluted by the defendant.
On an unspecified date the applicant asked to be exempted from court fees. On 22 December 1988 the court refused his application. On 3 April 1989, on the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court amended the first-instance decision and granted him a general exemption from court fees.
On an unspecified date the court obtained expert evidence.
On 22 December 1992 the Poznań Regional Court partly granted the applicant’s claim.
(b)Facts after 1 May 1993
On 31 August 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal, ruling on appeals lodged by both parties, partly amended the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Szamotuły District Court, ordering it to determine the amount of compensation to be granted to the applicant. It dismissed the appeal lodged by the defendant co-operative.
At the hearing held on 30 November 1993, the applicant modified his claim. On 17 May 1994 the applicant again modified his claim.
On 28 September 1994 the Szamotuły District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Poznań Agricultural Academy. The court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that order on 25 October 1994.
On 14 July 1995 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 28 July 1995 the District Court rejected his challenge. On 30 January 1996 the Poznań Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The case was, however, subsequently assigned to another judge.
On 3 February 1997 the court ordered that fresh expert evidence be obtained. The relevant expert report was ready on 20 March 1997.
On 31 October 1997 the Szamotuły District Court gave judgment partly granting the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 December 1997.
On 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Poznań Regional Court.
On 12 May 1998 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal. On 15 May 1998 the applicant lodged a notice of cassation appeal.
It is not clear whether the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgment with the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
1. In respect of the proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd., the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, submits the following complaints:
a) that the proceedings have been inordinately lengthy;
b)that they have been unfair;
c) that the courts arbitrarily refused to grant him a general exemption from the court fees.
2. In respect of the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative, the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, submits the following complaints:
a) that the length of the proceedings was excessive;
b) that they were unfair;
c) that the courts refused to grant him a general exemption from the court fees.
3. In respect of the proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative, the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, submits the following complaints:
a)that the length of the proceedings exceeded a “reasonable time”;
b) that the proceedings were unfair in that the courts wrongly assessed the evidence and did not award him adequate compensation.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of three sets of civil proceedings, notably, (1) the proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd.; (2) the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative and (3) the proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
2. In respect of the proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd., the applicant submits that the proceedings have been unfair, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
However, the Court notes that, in the light of the applicant’s submissions, the proceedings in question are still pending before the domestic courts and that, therefore, this complaint is premature.
It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
3. In respect of the proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd., and the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts arbitrarily refused to grant him a general exemption from the court fees.
However, the Court is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by the applicant in support of this complaint disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention as, in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court finds that the final decisions regarding this complaint were given by the Poznań District Court and the Poznań Court of Appeal on 8 February 1995 and on 8 October 1993 respectively, and thus more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted.
It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected under paragraph 4 of that Article.
4. In respect of the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair. The applicant also alleges that the proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative were unfair, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that the courts wrongly assessed the evidence and did not award him adequate compensation.
Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the Court “may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law”.
With respect to the above two sets of the proceedings the Court finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate whether or not he lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgments given in those proceedings.
However, the Court does not consider it necessary to decide whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention because, even assuming that such remedies have been exhausted, this part of the application must in any event be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
The Court reiterates that according to Article 19 of the Convention, the Court’s duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties in the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45 and 46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
The Court observes that in respect of the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing but objects to the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings. As far as the proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative are concerned, the applicant alleges that the courts wrongly assessed the evidence and did not award him adequate compensation.
In so far as the complaint about unfairness of the two sets of the proceedings in question falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Court finds no elements which would indicate that the national courts went beyond their discretion as to the assessment of the evidence presented in the course of the proceedings complained of. Nor does it consider that the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings had in itself any bearing on the applicant’s right to a fair trial. Assessing the proceedings complained of as a whole, the Court finds no indication that they were unfairly conducted.
It follows that this part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints that (1) the length of the proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd., (2) the length of the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative and (3) the length of the proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuły Agricultural Co-operative exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy