THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42072/98
by Ryszard MACIEJEWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 14 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Makarczyk
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrK. Traja,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 18 February 1998 by Ryszard Maciejewski against Poland and registered on 7 July 1998 under file no. 42072/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national born in 1949.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 September 1993 the Agricultural Co-operative “N” lodged with the Słubice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which it sought the dispossession of the applicant of a property situated in Kunowice. The property consisted of a detached house located on a plot of land.
On 25 August 1994 the Słubice District Court delivered a judgment in which it ordered the dispossession of the applicant. The court pointed out that on 18 August 1993 the applicant had moved into the house after it had been abandoned by a certain Mr A. Ł. However, the property belonged to the Co-operative, which had never agreed that the applicant should acquire its tenancy.
On 10 November 1994 the applicant filed with the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an appeal against the judgment of the District Court. He claimed that he had the title to the property as he had inherited it in 1967. Moreover, the applicant pointed out that the Słubice Municipal Council (Urząd Miejski) had registered him as the tenant of the property (zameldował) shortly before he had moved in.
On 17 January 1995 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 August 1994 and remitted the case to the Słubice District Court, instructing it to take additional evidence.
In a letter of 24 August 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court that he had not been informed about an appeal hearing and the court’s decision of 17 January 1995. On 21 September 1995 the President advised the applicant that he considered his complaint to be unfounded as his counsel had been informed about the date of the appeal hearing.
On 9 April 1996 the Governor of Gorzów (Wojewoda Gorzowski) rejected the applicant’s request to annul the Słubice County Council’s decision of 8 August 1969 to confiscate the property. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the Governor’s decision to the Minister of Agriculture (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej).
During the hearing held on 20 September 1996 the Słubice District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings before the Ministry of Agriculture.
On 23 September 1996 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Governor of Gorzów issued on 9 April 1996. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) an appeal against the decision of the Minister of Agriculture.
On 23 October 1996 the President of the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) replied to the applicant’s letter of 2 September 1996. The President advised the applicant that his counsel had been informed about the date of the appeal hearing to be held on 17 January 1995 before the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court but had failed to attend it. He also observed that the plaintiff had changed its claim after the case had been remitted to the first instance court and was seeking the eviction of the applicant.
On 19 September 1997 the applicant withdrew his appeal against the decision of the Minister of Agriculture lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court. As a result, on 4 November 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to discontinue the proceedings.
The civil proceedings initiated on 3 September 1993 are still pending before the Słubice District Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he was not informed about the date of an appellate hearing held on 17 January 1995 before the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court. He also complains about the assessment of evidence in the civil court proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant submits that he was deprived of his property and that the facts of his case disclose a breach of Article 8. Finally, he raises a complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the unreasonable length of the civil court proceedings.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains that he was not informed about the date of an appellate hearing held on 17 January 1995 before the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court. The Court will consider this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
The Court notes that the applicant was represented by counsel before the domestic courts and that it seems clear that the lawyer was notified of the date of the appeal hearing. Sufficient notification may thus be said to have been given by the appeal court. Moreover, the Court observes that the applicant’s appeal was successful despite his absence, with the case being remitted to the first instance court. It appears, therefore that the applicant suffered no significant prejudice from this incident.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no appearance of any violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention caused by the fact that the applicant was unaware of the appeal hearing date. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2.The applicant further complains about the assessment of evidence in the civil court proceedings, that he was deprived of his property and that his right to respect for his private and family life and his home has been breached.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides in so far as relevant as follows:
“No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The relevant part of Article 8 of the Convention provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of ... the economic well-being of the country, ... or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The Court observes that applicant’s claims are still pending before the domestic courts before whom he can raise, at least in substance, the complaints he is now putting before the Court. His complaints are therefore premature and must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded at this stage, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3.Finally, the applicant complains that the civil court proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the present state of the case-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 it to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the civil court proceedings in his case exceeded the reasonable time requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the reminder of the application.
S. DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy