FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 62424/00
by Barbara MADEŁA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
MrM. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 30 November 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Barbara Madeła, is a Polish national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 October 1994, J.B. (the applicant’s neighbour) lodged a claim for payment against the applicant with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
On 8 December 1994 the court held a hearing and ordered the plaintiff to submit a copy of the statement of claim.
On 3 March 1995 the court stayed the proceedings as the plaintiff failed to comply with its order.
Subsequently, on 17 May 1995, J.B.’s husband – M.B.– sued the applicant before the Warsaw District Court seeking payment.
On 4 July and 26 September 1995 the court held hearings.
At the hearing held on 21 November 1995 the court heard evidence from one witness. On 28 December 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from M.B.
On 20 November 1996 the court resumed the proceedings stayed on 3 March 1995. Later, on an unknown date it also decided to join both cases.
On 24 February 1997 the court summoned the housing co-operative - “Osiedle Młodych” - to join the proceedings.
On 23 April 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from one witness.
On 10 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 7 July 1997 the court dismissed her challenge.
On 29 July 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 24 March 1998 an expert submitted his report to the court.
At the hearing held on 2 June 1999 the plaintiffs withdrew their statement of claim with respect to the applicant. On the same date the court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
2. She also alleges a breach of Article 6 in that she did not have a “fair hearing” because the court made serious errors of fact and law.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Article 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 complaint to the respondent Government
2. The applicant further complains about unfairness of the proceedings and alleges errors of fact and law committed by the Warsaw District Court. She alleges a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
However, the Court recalls that it is not called upon to deal with errors of fact and law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
In the present case, the Court finds no indication that the courts went beyond the margin of appreciation left to them in respect of the assessment of evidence, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.
It follows that the remainder of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to paragraph 4 of that Article.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy