THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 46034/99
by Danuta GRYZIECKA and Henryk GRYZIECKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of[Note1]
MrG. Ress, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrP. Kūris,
MrR. Türmen,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 January 1998 and registered on 5 February 1999,
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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Danuta Gryziecka and Henryk Gryziecki, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1950 and 1949 respectively and live in Niedźwiedź, Poland. They are represented before the Court by Mrs Grażyna Koczorowska, a lawyer practising in Szczecin, Poland. 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.
1. Facts prior to 1 May 1993
On 31 August 1981 J.P. sued the applicants in the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) seeking repayment of the money he had invested in the applicants’ hen house. He submitted that he had established a non-commercial partnership (spółka cywilna) with the applicants.
On 11 September 1981 the Regional Court transferred the case to the Stargard Szczeciński District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) because the latter court was competent to deal with the subject-matter.
On 11 November 1981 the applicants filed their pleadings with the District Court. They acknowledged the plaintiff’s claim in respect to payment of 728,000 old Polish zlotys received from him for the hen house. They denied any further liability and submitted that no partnership had been established between them. On 2 January 1982 the court ordered that the applicants produce certain documentary evidence.
On 17 March 1982 the District Court stayed the proceedings because the plaintiff had not complied with a certain court order. On 30 September 1982 the plaintiff’s lawyer requested to resume the proceedings and to admit evidence. On 7 March 1983 the District Court resumed the proceedings.
On 22 March 1983 the court held the first hearing. From that date to 9 February 1989 the court held approximately nine hearings and heard some witnesses. In the course of the proceedings the plaintiff modified his claim.
On an unknown date in 1984 the applicants transferred the sum of 728,000 old Polish zlotys to the plaintiff’s account.
In July 1984 the plaintiff died. Subsequently, his wife and daughter (“the plaintiffs”) joined the proceedings as his legal successors.
On 9 February 1989 the court held a hearing. The witness summoned by the court did not appear. The court ordered the plaintiffs’ lawyer to make an advance payment for an expert report. It also decided to obtain certain documentary evidence from a bank.
On an unknown date in 1989 the plaintiffs apparently modified their claim. This resulted in the proceedings being then conducted as non-contentious ones (postępowanie nieprocesowe) concerning the division of the shares in the non-commercial partnership.
From that date to 9 November 1992 the court held a number of hearings. During that time the court obtained three expert reports, held one view of the site and heard witnesses. The plaintiffs again modified their claim.
On 9 November 1992 the District Court decided to obtain fresh expert evidence in order to determine the value of certain construction works made by the second applicant (Henryk Gryziecki). The expert report was submitted to the court on 22 December 1992.
2. Facts after 1 May 1993
On 27 May 1993 the above-mentioned expert report was served on the applicants’ lawyer. On 3 June 1993 the applicants submitted their observations on the report. On 19 April 1994 the plaintiffs requested a date for a hearing.
On 7 July and on 11 August 1994 the court ordered the parties to produce evidence in support of their submissions. The applicant’s lawyer requested the court to hear witness.
On 19 May 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from certain witnesses. The court ordered the plaintiffs’ lawyer to specify their claims and to produce the marriage certificate of the late plaintiff.
On 10 and on 21 May 1996 the plaintiffs requested the court to list a hearing. In the meantime, the case had been assigned to a new judge.
On 5 April 1996 the plaintiffs specified the value of their claim. They submitted that the original plaintiff had established a non-commercial partnership with the applicants and had invested his money in the construction of the hen house and further business activities. On 20 August 1996 the District Court decided that fresh expert evidence be obtained in order to determine the value of the land on which the hen house had been constructed. On 12 November 1996 the expert report was submitted to the court. On 11 December 1996 the expert report was served on the applicants. On 27 December 1996 they submitted their observations on the report.
On 14 January 1997 the plaintiffs’ lawyer requested the court to list a hearing. On 18 March 1997 the applicants filed their pleadings with the court.
On 24 March 1997 the District Court held a hearing. The applicants requested that the court index the repayment of their bank loan made by them and the payment of the acknowledged part of the claim made to the original plaintiff in 1984. The applicants also requested to obtain documentary evidence from the land register. The court fixed a one-month time-limit for the parties to produce evidence. Subsequently, the parties filed their pleadings with the court on 22 April 1997. On 22 May 1997 the applicants filed additional pleadings.
On 2 June and on 14 July 1997 the court held hearings. On both occasions a certain witness did not appear before the court. The court fined him. On 16 September 1997 the plaintiffs again modified their claim.
On 17 September 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from one witness. The applicants requested the court to obtain expert evidence in order to determine an indexed value of the repayment of their bank loan and the payment made by the applicants in 1984 to the original plaintiff. The court ordered the applicant’s lawyer to secure money for an advance payment for an expert report.
In the meantime the case was assigned to a new judge. On 22 January 1998 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from one of the plaintiffs.
The court held a hearing on 12 March 1998. It heard the second plaintiff and the second applicant. The plaintiffs withdrew their claims against the first applicant (Danuta Gryziecka). The court closed the proceedings. It did not obtain any expert report even though the applicants had secured money for such a report.
On 26 March 1998 the Stargard Szczeciński District Court gave judgment in the case concerning the action for payment. It partly granted the claim of the original plaintiff’s daughter against the second applicant and dismissed the claim of the original plaintiff’s wife. The court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant. None of the parties submitted a notice of appeal.
The second applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against the first-instance judgment in respect of the costs ordered to be paid by him. On 19 June 1998 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed his appeal.
THE LAW
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 31 August 1981 and ended on 26 March 1998 with the Stargard Szczeciński District Court. They therefore lasted sixteen years, six months and twenty-six days, out of which the period of four years, ten months and twenty-five days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
According to the applicants, 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 applicants’ 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.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via Alt+S please REMOVE the substitute judge’s names, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Registrar.)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy