FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 75075/01
by Mieczyslaw KORNECKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsV. Stráznická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 10 April 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mieczyslaw Kornecki, is a Polish national, who has not specified his date of birth and lives in Sanok, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Facts prior to 1 May 1993
On 9 April 1987 the applicant filed with the Sanok District Court (Sad Rejonowy) an application for distribution of the inheritance left by his parents.
B. Facts after 30 April 1993
On 5 May 1994 the court held a hearing. It ordered that an expert report be prepared and adjourned the hearing. The next hearing was held on 5 January 1995. The court heard the experts and adjourned the hearing sine die.
On 9 May 1995 the court held a hearing and ordered that supplementary evidence from the parties be taken. It adjourned the hearing until 20 June 1995.
On 3 November 1995 the District Court gave a decision (postanowienie). The applicant appealed against the first-instance decision to the Krosno Regional Court (Sad Okregowy).On 26 March 1996 the Regional Court set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
After remittal of the case, the District Court held a hearing on 30 May 1996.
On 9 December 1996 the court issued an interim order allowing one party to the proceedings to build a bathroom in the apartment. Two other parties to the proceedings appealed against this decision.
On 12 February 1997 the Krosno Regional Court amended the Sanok District Court’s decision of 9 December 1996 in that it dismissed the request for the issuing of an interim order.
Subsequently, the District Court held a hearing on 23 April 1997 and ordered that a number of supplementary expert reports be prepared.
At the next hearing, which was held on 11 December 1997, the court heard the experts.
On 10 February 1998 the court held a hearing and heard a supplementary evidence from an expert. It closed the examination of the case and announced that the decision would be delivered on 24 February 1998.
On 24 February 1998 the District Court gave a decision.
On 25 June 1999, on the applicant’s appeal, the Krosno Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision. Later, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sad Najwyzszy). On 12 January 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
COMPLAINT
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
2. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2 The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings.
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 (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
The Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect her right to a fair hearing. 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 complaint that the length of the proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy