FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42628/98
by Agnieszka PILCH
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 November 2000 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 19 May 1998 and registered on 6 August 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1969 and living in Cracow, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
On 1 August 1992 the applicant filed with the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action in which she requested that the author and publishers of a book about gymnastics containing her pictures be ordered to destroy unsold copies of it and pay her royalties. Initially, the applicant claimed that she was the co-author of the book, as it could not have been published without her contribution, but subsequently changed the grounds of her action, arguing that the defendants violated her personal rights (dobra osobiste). She also maintained that a spelling mistake of her surname in the book ridiculed her.
On 11 December 1993 the court rejected the action with respect to certain defendants, as they were civil associations (spółka cywilna) not having legal personality, and stayed the proceedings with respect to another, which was in the course of insolvency proceedings. The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision.
On 17 May 1994 the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the complaint. However, it declared that a petition written by the applicant on 21 February 1994 should be regarded as a request to serve summonses on the owners of the associations against which the action had been filed.
On 2 February 1995 the Cracow Regional Court decided to serve summonses on the individuals whom the applicant indicated in her request of 21 February 1994.
The applicant submits that in the course of the proceedings the Cracow Regional Court held at least 32 hearings, not including those at which certain witnesses were heard by other courts. On several occasions the hearings were adjourned because of the defendants’ absence.
Certain hearings took place before other courts, as some of the witnesses did not live in Cracow.
On 4 February 1998 the Cracow Regional Court delivered a judgment, in which it ordered the destruction of the unsold copies of the book and banned the defendants from publishing the pictures of the applicant without her prior consent. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s action.
It appears that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against that judgment.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
2.She submits that the court did not examine any evidence other than that being in the possession of the court at the beginning of the trial and that the court based its judgment not on evidence, but on presumptions.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
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 the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
2.The applicant complains about the manner in which the domestic admitted and assessed the evidence before it.
The Court recalls that Article 6 of the Convention 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 Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, 21.1.99, § 28, unreported). It follows that this complaint 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 about the unreasonable length of the proceedings;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy