FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42078/98
by Stanisław SITAREK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
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 20 September 1997,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Stanisław Sitarek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bydgoszcz, Poland. He is not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government are represented by Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Civil proceedings
On 20 August 1992 the applicant filed with the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action in which he requested that a certain B. M., who had failed to comply with her own declaration to exchange a defective car sold to the applicant for a new one, pay him the amount equivalent to the value of that car.
The court held hearings on 14 October 1992, 13 January, 10 February, 5 April, 19 May and 23 June 1993. It ordered an expert opinion.
On 29 June 1993 the applicant challenged the participation in the proceedings of an expert. On 6 October 1993 he lodged a complaint about the fact that the case-file had been handed over to the expert.
On 29 October 1993 the court requested the expert to submit his opinion in due time.
On 7 November 1993 the expert submitted his opinion.
On 18 November 1993 the applicant’s lawyer challenged that opinion. On 24 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to dismiss the testimony given by certain witnesses.
In reply to the applicant’s complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court, the President of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) and the Ombudsman informed him that his complaints were unsubstantiated.
On 25 March 1994 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure.
At the hearing held on 25 March 1994 the applicant rejected a friendly-settlement proposal made by the defendant. The court ordered a supplementary expert opinion.
On 10 May 1994 the applicant challenged the expert opinion.
On 30 May 1994 his lawyer requested the court to order the defendant to submit the original of a bill of lading.
The court held a hearing on 31 May 1994. Between June and August 1994 the court verified the authenticity of that bill of lading.
At the hearing held on 30 August 1994 it imposed a fine on the witness who had failed to appear before the court.
Further hearings were held on 30 August and 28 October 1994.
On 7 November 1994, at the applicant’s request, the court asked the Katowice Customs Office to submit certain documents concerning the customs clearance of the car.
On 22 November 1994 a hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the defendant’s lawyer.
The court held hearings on 27 January, 11 April and 9 May 1995.
According to the applicant, the hearings scheduled for 29 August and 15 December 1995, as well as 16 February 1996, were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear before the court. The Government submit that the court did hold those hearings.
On 30 October 1995 the hearing was adjourned, according to the applicant, because of the applicant’s illness and the defendant’s absence. The Government submit that it was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness.
Hearings took place on 12 April, 25 April, 10 May, 3 June and 28 June 1996. The hearing of 25 April 1996 was held at the defendant’s home, because of her illness. On 3 June 1996 the court refused the applicant’s request for an interim measure.
The hearing scheduled for 27 September 1996 was adjourned because of the judge’s illness.
On 19 November 1996 the court adjourned a hearing as none of the parties had been duly informed about it.
On 15 January 1997 the applicant extended his claims.
At the hearing held on 17 January 1997 the expert submitted an additional opinion.
On 1 September 1997 the court refused the applicant’s request to correct the minutes of a hearing.
The court did not schedule any hearings between January and October 1997, when it scheduled one for 16 January 1998.
In October and November 1997 the case-file was transferred to the Bydgoszcz District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy).
The applicant submits that the hearing scheduled for 16 January 1998 was adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear. The Government submit that it was held on that date.
On 3 April 1998 the court held a hearing.
On 17 April 1998 it stayed the proceedings until the completion of criminal proceedings against the defendant and certain witnesses. The court considered that the outcome of the civil proceedings would depend on the criminal courts’ findings. On the same day it ordered an interim measure. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings. On 3 July 1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal.
In the letter of 14 October 1999 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that it had recommended the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court to reconsider the grounds of the decision to stay the proceedings and requested that the proceedings be taken under his administrative supervision.
On 15 October 1999 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed. In reply he was informed that his request could not be for the time being examined, because the court could not examine the case-file of the criminal proceedings.
His subsequent similar request was declined by the court’s decision of 18 November 1999. On 10 December 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against that decision.
2. Criminal proceedings
On 5 July 1993 the applicant requested the prosecution authorities to institute an investigation concerning the defendant and her husband, submitting that they had given false testimony in the civil proceedings and had used falsified documents.
On 31 March 1994 the Bydgoszcz District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, considering that the alleged offence had not been committed. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Bydgoszcz Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki).
In reply to the applicant’s complaint the Gdańsk Appellate Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Apelacyjnej) ordered the re-opening of the investigation.
Between 1994 and 1997 the Bydgoszcz District Prosecutor issued five decisions either discontinuing or staying the investigation, but they were all quashed by the Bydgoszcz Regional Prosecutor.
On 15 November 1997 the District Prosecutor submitted a bill of indictment to the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
On an unspecified date additional criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of the material gathered in those proceedings. They concerned a court expert and certain witnesses who had taken part in the civil proceedings.
The proceedings against the witnesses were terminated in 1999. They were convicted of forgery.
On 10 October 2001 judgment was given in the criminal proceedings against a court expert. He was convicted of giving false testimony in the civil proceedings.
The criminal proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 20 August 1992 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted 9 years, 8 months and 25 days, out of which the period of 9 years and 13 days falls within the Court’s competence 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