FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 76446/01
by Henryka MALINOWSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 December 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 24 January 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Henryka Malinowska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1914 and lives in Warsaw.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In November and December 1989 the applicant’s neighbours were renovating an attic over the applicant’s flat and partly removed the roof. In a consequence, the applicant’s flat was flooded and her belongings were damaged.
On 3 June 1992 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court a civil action against her neighbours. She requested PLN 4,000 in compensation for damage to her property. On an unknown date the case was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court.
On 17 February 1993 the trial court held the first hearing at which it heard both parties.
On 19 January, 21 March, 12 September and 27 October 1994 the trial court held hearings.
Between March 1994 and December 1995 the judge rapporteur in the case was changed on two occasions.
In 1995 five hearings were held.
On 28 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 1,500 by way of pecuniary damage and dismissed the remaining part of her action.
Both parties lodged appeals.
It appears that the Regional Court had lost the case-file and on 20 August 1996 the applicant was requested to provide copies of all documents in order to reconstruct it.
On 13 November 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal held a hearing at which it gave a judgment. It partly upheld the Regional Court’s judgment concerning compensation but lowered its amount to PLN 500. The remaining part of the judgment was quashed and remitted to the court of the first-instance. The appellate court found, inter alia, that the trial court had failed to establish all relevant facts and the real amount of damage caused by the flooding.
On 24 July 1997 the Warsaw District Court held the first hearing.
On 2 October 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion.
Between July 1997 and June 1998 no hearings were held.
On 9 June 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to set a deadline for the expert opinion. The applicant informed the court that in 1994 the flat in question had been sold by the City Council and the new owner did not agree to the inspection. The hearing was adjourned sine die.
On 22 October 1998 the trial court held a hearing at which it again decided to send the case-file to the expert and set a one-month deadline for the expert opinion.
Between 22 October 1998 and January 2001 no hearings were held.
In January 2001 the case was taken over by another judge.
On 30 January and 16 May 2001 the court held hearings. At the hearing held on 16 May 2001 the court again decided to send the case-file to the expert.
The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw District Court.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
2. She also appears to complain under Articles 8, 10 and 17 of the Convention, about the unfairness of the proceedings, the incompetence and abuse of power by a judge and the destruction of her flat.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under at 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 responded Government.
2. The applicant also complains that the facts of her case disclose a violation of Articles 8, 10 and 17 of the Convention.
However, the Court finds that the applicant’s assertions about the violations of the above provisions of the Convention are wholly unsubstantiated.
It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the length of the proceedings in her case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy