FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 46004/99
by Zdzisław SIKORSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 June 2003 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsE. Palm,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,,
and MrM. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 August 1998,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
According to the applicant, on 3 February 1991 Ms S. filed with the Oleśno District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which she sought the distribution of an inheritance and the dissolution of the co-ownership of the inherited property. The applicant is one of the heirs to that property. The Government submit that the action was filed on 28 March 1991.
The court held hearings on 15 May, 28 August and 14 November 1991, 29 January, 22 April, 27 May and 30 September 1992, 23 February and 7 June 1993, 28 March and 25 April 1994, 28 June 1995, 27 March and 7 August 1996, 6 January, 17 November and 11 December 1997, as well as 3 June and 22 June 1998.
On 4 March 1999 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.
Further hearings were held on 30 March, 23 April, 5 May, 11 May, 23 June, 14 July and 28 July 1999.
The hearing scheduled for 8 September 1999 was adjourned because of an illness of a court expert.
The court held hearings on 14 October and 30 December 1999, 17 January, 29 March, 20 April, 28 April, 18 May, 23 May and 16 June 2000.
On 20 June 2000, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) noted that the delay resulted from the complexity of the case, the parties’ numerous requests concerning evidence and their petitions challenging expert opinions. She admitted that the court experts had failed to issue their opinions within time-limits. The President considered that in one of such cases, in 1997, the court had failed to use disciplinary measures against the expert. She finally informed the applicant that she had instituted proceedings which could result in the dismissal of certain experts.
On 8 November 2000 the Oleśno District Court imposed a fine on an expert for his non-compliance with the time-limit for issuing his opinion.
On 10 January 2001 the court quashed its decision of 8 November 2000.
On the same day the court summoned certain individuals to participate in the proceedings.
On 20 February 2001 it stayed the proceedings because of the death of one of the participants. On 5 June 2001 the court resumed the examination of the case.
It held hearings on 6 July 2001 and 4 January 2002. The hearings scheduled for 15 February and 27 March 2002 were adjourned because of the absence of Ms S. Hearings were held on 29 May and 20 September 2002.
On 2 April 2003 the court served a copy of an expert opinion on the applicant for observations.
The proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began in 1991 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted over 12 years, out of which the period of 10 years, 1 month and 24 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993.
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 unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy