FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 77831/01
by I. P.
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 November 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs I.P., is a Polish national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Ciechanów. She is married and has two children.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In August 1992 the applicant, at that time thirty-years-old, underwent a gynaecological surgery. The surgery was supposed to be of a minor “cosmetic” character, however, a few days later due to post-operative complications, she had to undergo another operation during which her uterus and one ovary were removed.
In October 1992 the applicant requested the prosecution service to initiate criminal proceedings against the doctors and the hospital. It appears that on 15 February 1996 the proceedings were finally discontinued.
On 29 April 1993 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court a civil action for compensation against the hospital. She claimed that she was a victim of a medical malpractice which deprived her of a possibility of having more children and caused enormous psychological suffering. She requested compensation of PLN 50,000.
On 4 May 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court exempted the applicant from the court fees.
On 5 July 1994 the court held the first hearing at which the applicant was heard. The court requested from the prosecution service the case-file concerning the criminal case against the doctors.
On 25 January 1995 the trial court stayed the proceedings because the prosecution service refused to provide the file of the criminal case while the criminal proceedings were pending.
On 21 June 1996 the trial court resumed the civil proceedings.
On 23 August 1996 the court held a hearing which had to be adjourned because of the absence of the defendant’s representative.
On 27 November 1996, 15 January and 12 February 1997 the trial court held hearings at which it heard witnesses.
On 2 April 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion.
On 26 September 1997 the court held a hearing at which it heard an expert witness.
In February 1998 the applicant dismissed her lawyer because she could not any longer afford this expense. It appears that she applied for a court-appointed lawyer but her application was not examined.
On 13 March 1998 the court, sitting in camera, allowed the applicant’s application for a second expert opinion. Subsequently, the applicant informed the court that she wished to cross-examine the expert witnesses.
On 15 July 1998 the court, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicant’s request to exempt her from the costs of the expert opinion.
On 30 September 1998 the applicant received the expert opinion and again requested the court to hear expert witnesses.
In May 1999 the court asked the applicant to designate the defendant because after the administrative reform the Mazowsze Governor had become a competent authority to represent the State Treasury. The applicant complied with this order. She also asked the trial court to call as a co-defendant the doctor who performed the surgery, but on 8 December 1999 the court refused her application.
Between September 1997 and February 2000 no hearings were held.
On 7 February 2000 the court held a hearing. The applicant was informed that the court had lost her application to hear expert witnesses and her questions to them. The new date for cross-examination was set for 29 June 2000 before the Kraków Regional Court.
The applicant went to Kraków to take part in the hearing scheduled for 29 June 2000, however, it was adjourned because the expert witnesses were not properly notified.
On an unspecified date the expert witnesses were heard before the Kraków District Court. The applicant who could not attend that hearing, submitted her questions in writing.
On 8 January 2001 the trial court held the last hearing.
On 5 February 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court gave the judgment. It found no negligence on the part of doctors. Nevertheless, the applicant was awarded PLN 10,000 as compensation for her suffering.
In April 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment.
On 28 February 2002 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Warsaw Court of Appeal as lodged out of time. The applicant appealed against it and it appears that the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court. On 20 May 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, sitting in camera, partly exempted her from the court fees in the appeal procedure. The applicant paid the remaining part of the costs.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
2. She also alleges a breach of Article 6 § 1 in that she did not have a “fair trial”.
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 the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the responded Government.
2. The applicant further complains about unfairness of the proceedings.
However, the Court notes that the proceedings in question are still pending before the domestic courts and that, therefore, this complaint is premature.
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy