FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 57467/00
by Henryk LIPOWICZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 1999,
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 applicant, Mr Henryk Lipowicz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest, Hungary.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant used to work in the Budapest office of the company “Ars Antiqua Restauro” - (“A.A.R.”) registered in Poland. On 17 May 1995 he was dismissed from his job. On 27 May 1995 he lodged a claim for reinstatement with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
The court held hearings on 27 July and 5 December 1995.
On 1 February 1996 the applicant asked the court to issue an interim order to safeguard his claim in the proceedings. On 2 April 1996 the court refused his request. On 14 May 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
On 2 April 1996 the court held a hearing.
At the hearing held on 23 July 1996 the applicant modified his claim. As a consequence, the case was transferred to the Regional Court.
The court held further hearings on 5 November and 17 December 1996. It also decided that two witnesses be heard by two other courts. The witnesses were heard by the Kraków District Court and the Wrocław District Court on 30 June and 3 September 1997, respectively.
On 26 November 1997 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 31 December 1997 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court.
The court held a hearing on 20 January 1998 The hearing listed for 2 February 1998 was cancelled.
At the hearing held on 7 April 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify his claim. On 27 April 1998 the applicant modified his claim.
On 26 May 1998 the Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for an interim order. On 27 May 1998 the court stayed the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the order of 7 April 1998. The applicant appealed against those two decisions.
On 9 July 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 26 May 1998 and quashed the decision of 27 May 1998.
On 30 March 1999 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify his claim. On 4 April 1999 he submitted his pleading to the court.
On 1 June 1999 the court held a hearing.
On 9 November 1999 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings because the president of the defendant company, who was its representative, had died. Upon the applicant’s appeal the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed that decision on 28 December 1999.
On 27 September 2000 the court again stayed the proceedings, since the defendant company had not yet appointed a new representative. That decision was set aside by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 21 November 2000.
On 15 February 2001, for the third time, the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. On 26 May 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
On 27 August 2001 the applicant’s lawyer asked the trial court to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of the “A.A.R “.
On 4 December 2002 the Warsaw District Court appointed a guardian.
The proceedings were resumed at a later unknown date. It appears that they are pending before the Regional Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 27 May 1995 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted nearly 8 years.
According to the applicant, 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 applicant’s 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.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy