FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 16573/10
Jolanta and Leon KUŚ
against Poland
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Jolanta Kuś and Mr. Leon Kuś, are Polish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1962 respectively and live in Lubliniec. Their application was lodged on 17 March 2010.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Main proceedings (case nos. I Ns 363/96, I Ca 694/99, VI Ca 209/08)
On 23 September 1996 the applicants instituted civil proceedings for the division of co-ownership.
On 27 May 1999 the Lublilniec District Court gave its decision. The applicants appealed against the decision.
On 28 December 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court quashed the decision.
On 31 December 2007 the Lubliniec District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne). The applicants appealed against the decision.
On 13 May 2008 the Częstochowa Regional Court partly amended the decision of 31 December 2007.
The proceedings appear to be still pending.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act (case no. S 7/05)
On 13 April 2005 the second applicant, Mr. Leon Kuś, lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed compensation of PLN 10,000.
By a decision of 12 May 2005 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court took note of the fact that the length of the proceedings complained of covered mostly the period prior to 17 September 2004, i.e. the date on which the 2004 Act had entered into force. In this connection, the court held that prior to that date the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner and that the length of the proceedings had been largely due to the conduct of the parties, in particular to their disagreement and exchange of correspondence on certain points concerning the case. The court concluded, invoking the relevant case-law of the Supreme Court, that the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as excessive within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the 2004 Act.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in their case has been excessive.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted all domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in order to comply with the exhaustion requirement, should they have lodged a further complaint under Section 5 of the 2004 Act following their unsuccessful complaint dismissed by the Częstochowa Regional Court on 12 May 2005 ?
2. In the affirmative, was the length of the proceedings in the present case in compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy