FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 40330/98
by Romuald PIECHOTA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 3 May 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 October 1997 and registered on 18 March 1998,
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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Romuald Piechota, is a Polish national, born in 1934 and living in Katowice, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The proceedings instituted on 21 July 1982
On 21 July 1982 the applicant filed with the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action against his brother in which he requested that his brother provide him with keys to the front door and the basement of an apartment building they jointly owned. The applicant also asked the court to order his brother to allow him to use rooms situated in the basement and the attic and to give him access to the garden.
The proceedings were terminated on 12 May 1987, when the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) delivered a final judgment.
2. The proceedings instituted on 10 January 1983
On 10 January 1983 the applicant’s brother, Mr M.P., instituted non-contentious proceedings (postępowanie nieprocesowe) in which he asked the Katowice District Court to decide the manner in which an apartment building owned by him and the applicant should be used (uregulowanie sposobu korzystania). Mr M.P. died on 28 January 1995 and was subsequently replaced as a party to the proceedings by his widow and son.
The proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
THE LAW
1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 21 July 1982 and ended on 12 May 1987.
The Court finds that the impugned proceedings relate to a period prior to 1 May 1993, which is the date on which the Convention came into force in respect of Poland. However, the Convention only governs facts subsequent to its entry into force in respect of each Contracting Party. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2. The applicant’s second complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which began on 10 January 1983 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted over eigthteen years out of which eight years are 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 “reasonable time” (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 this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case, the applicant’s complaint relating to the excessive length of the proceedings instituted on 10 January 1983;
Declares inadmissible the reminder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy