FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 49176/99
by Stanisław PALKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 April 1996,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Stanislaw Pałka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Warsaw. He is represented before the Court by Mr W. Hermelinski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 April 1992 a certain company U submitted a bill of exchange in the amount of PLN 50,000 signed by the applicant and requested the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to issue an order for payment against him and other partners in the civil association K (spółka cywilna).
On 9 June 1992 the court gave the order for payment in which it allowed the plaintiff’s application.
The applicant lodged an appeal against that order.
On 7 July 1992 the applicant applied for an exemption from the court‑fees. On 10 March 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his request. He appealed against that decision. On 11 May 1993 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time. His application for leave to appeal out of time was finally dismissed on 19 October 1993.
On 10 January 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court again ordered the applicant to pay the court-fees. Subsequently, the applicant applied for the second time for exemption from the fees. On 21 March 1995 the court dismissed his request. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 10 August 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged another request for exemption from the court-fees. However, it was again refused on 8 December 1995 by the Warsaw Regional Court. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 4 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and exempted the applicant from the court-fees.
The Warsaw Regional Court scheduled hearings for 22 May, 18 September, 23 October and 24 November 1997. However, all of them were adjourned.
Between 8 December 1997 and 18 May 1998 five hearings were adjourned.
On 18 June 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it upheld the Warsaw District Court’s order of 9 June 1992.
The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment with the Warsaw Court of Appeal and requested exemption from court-fees in the appellate proceedings.
On 2 November 1998 the court exempted the applicant from the fees.
On 5 March 1999 the Court of Appeal held a hearing and on 12 March 1999 it gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Subsequently, the applicant requested the Warsaw Court of Appeal to appoint him a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
On 18 August 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed his application. Subsequently, the applicant’s court appointed lawyer lodged on his behalf the cassation appeal.
On 15 September 1999 the applicant was ordered to pay court-fees for lodging the cassation appeal.
On 17 November 1999 the court granted the applicant an exemption from court‑fees in the cassation proceedings.
It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not had his case heard within a “reasonable time”.
He further alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention in that he had no effective remedy against the protracted length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 15 April 1992 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted about eleven years and nine months out of which the period of ten years and nine months falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
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 the “reasonable time” requirement (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 the complaint is required.
2. The applicant further alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention in that he had no effective remedy against the protracted length of the proceedings in his case.
The Government maintained that since 18 December 2001, the date of the entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 4 December 2001, the applicant had had at his disposal an “effective remedy” within the meaning of that provision.
The applicant replied that the remedy suggested by the Government was purely theoretical and could not be regarded as “effective” for the purposes of Article 13.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy