FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39619/98
by Andrzej and Barbara PIŁKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrsE. Palm,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 August 1997,
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 applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Andrzej Piłka and Barbara Piłka, are Polish nationals, born respectively in 1943 and 1942 and living in Józefów, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993
The applicants share a house and a plot of land with another family (“the neighbours”).
On 2 January 1989 the applicants filed with the Otwock District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the building be dissolved in accordance with an administrative decision issued in 1983.
From 2 January 1989 to 1 May 1993 the court held hearings on the following dates: 23 March, 21 August and 4 December 1989, 15 January, 9 April, 14 May, 21 June, 6 September, and 15 October 1990.
On 16 May 1991 the court held a hearing and ordered interim measures by which the parties to the proceedings were ordered not to carry out any construction works in the building except for the erection of a wall in the attic. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 16 September 1991 and 16 January 1992.
On 30 January 1992 the court stayed the proceedings until the termination of administrative proceedings concerning the annulment of the 1983 decision.
On 11 June 1992 the court held a hearing. It quashed in part its decision of 16 May 1991 and allowed the applicants’ neighbours to carry out certain works in the building.
The next hearing was held on 16 July 1992.
On 20 July 1992 the court dissolved the co-ownership of the property in accordance with the applicants’ petition. Their neighbours lodged an appeal against that decision.
On 30 October 1992 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 20 July 1992 and remitted the case for re-examination.
B. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993
On 6 August and 2 September 1994 the experts’ reports were submitted to the court. The neighbours challenged the report of 6 August 1994.
Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 11 May, 6 June and 25 August 1994.
On 25 August 1994 the Otwock District Court quashed in part its decision of 16 May 1991 and allowed the applicants to carry out certain works in the building. The neighbours appealed against this decision.
A hearing listed for 20 October 1994 was adjourned as the neighbours’ lawyer was not present.
On 5 December 1994 a supplementary expert report was submitted to the court.
On 21 December 1994 the court held a hearing.
On 4 August 1995, in the course of administrative proceedings concerning a construction permit, the Mayor of Józefów (Burmistrz) issued a decision allowing the construction of a wall dividing the building co-owned by the applicants.
On 22 January 1996 the Warsaw Governor (Wojewoda) allowed the applicants’ appeal and quashed the decision of the Mayor of Józefów, considering that the construction of the wall would be dangerous for the users of the building.
On 24 January 1996 the neighbours’ lawyer requested the Otwock District Court to stay the proceedings until the termination of administrative proceedings concerning the applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Mayor of Józefów.
On 30 January 1996 the Otwock District Court stayed the proceedings.
On 14 February 1996 the neighbours lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Warsaw Governor.
On 15 February 1996 the Otwock District Court resumed the proceedings.
On 26 February 1996 the neighbours again requested the court to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.
On 15 May 1996 the court held a hearing and stayed the proceedings. On 11 July 1996 the court resumed the proceedings.
Further hearings were held on 23 December 1996 and 27 January 1997.
On 27 January 1997 the Otwock District Court issued a decision by which it dissolved the co-ownership of the property and divided it into two separate estates. The court left the other issues relating to the dissolution, such as financial disputes between the parties, for the further proceedings. On 30 January 1997 the applicants’ neighbours appealed.
On 6 February 1997 the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on 18 February 1997.
On 29 April 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing and quashed the decision of 27 January 1997.
At the hearing held on 26 September 1997 before the Otwock District Court the applicants presented their proposal for the division of the building. The court instructed the neighbours to submit their written observations on that proposal.
On 27 November 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the decision issued by the Warsaw Governor on 22 January 1996.
The trial court held further hearings on 3 February and 24 March 1998.
On 30 March 1998 the Otwock District Court ordered that a valuation of the property be carried out by an expert.
On 12 February 1999 the Otwock District Court held a hearing.
On 12 April 1999 the court decided to request the Józefów Town Office (Urząd Miejski) to submit an opinion on a plan for the division of the property.
On 20 July 1999 the Józefów Town Office submitted its opinion indicating that the division would not be in accordance with a town planning scheme (plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego).
On 8 March 2000 there was a fire, which substantially destroyed the part of the building belonging to the applicants’ neighbours. On 26 April 2000 the applicants submitted to the court a proposal for the division of the building, taking into account the new circumstances of the case.
On 27 June 2000 the District Construction Inspector (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) ordered the demolition of the part of the building occupied by the applicants’ neighbours and certain adjustments of the applicants’ part.
The next hearing was held on 12 February 2001. The court decided to obtain a fresh expert report in order to determine the division of the property.
The proceedings are pending in the Otwock District Court.
THE LAW
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 2 January 1989 before the Otwock District Court and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted 13 years and 2 months, out of which the period of 8 years and 10 months falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
According to the applicants, 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 applicants’ 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 unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy