THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 40835/98
by Joanna and Anna SZARAPO
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 November 2001 as a Chamber composed of[Note1]
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrP. Kūris,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 December 1997 and registered on 20 April 1998,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Anna Szarapo and Joanna Szarapo, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1957 and 1980 respectively and live in Gliwice.
A.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 November 1980 the first applicant lodged a claim, seeking that the paternity of the defendant be established in respect of the second applicant. The applicants also claimed child support. On 10 December 1986 the Zabrze District Court dismissed their claims. On 18 March 1987 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal.
The applicants requested the Minister of Justice to lodge on their behalf an extraordinary appeal against the judgment. On 18 September 1987 the Minister of Justice lodged such an appeal with the Supreme Court, maintaining that the lower courts had committed serious errors of substantive law.
On 23 October 1987 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments and ordered the case to be reconsidered.
On 23 December 1991 the Zabrze District Court again dismissed the applicants’ claims. On 12 May 1992, as a result of the applicants’ appeal, the Katowice Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 December 1991 and ordered the case to be reconsidered.
On 10 May 1993 the defendant informed the Zabrze District Court that he refused to undergo the DNA tests. Notwithstanding his refusal, three other dates (23 August, 9 September and 11 October 1993) were fixed for the purpose of these tests. The defendant did not report for the tests on any of these dates.
On 15 December 1993 the next hearing was held. The court fixed for the defendant a fourteen-days time-limit in which he was to take final position as to the DNA tests. In a letter of 27 December 1993 the defendant informed the court about his refusal to undergo them, submitting that the applicant on many occasions had lied in the course of proceedings. He referred to the judgment of the Katowice Regional Court of 12 May 1992 in which it had been stated that the applicant had submitted inaccurate information as to the her last menstruation before the pregnancy.
On 23 February 1994 the next hearing was held. During the hearing held on 23 March 1994 the court heard another witness and asked the defendant again whether he would undergo the DNA tests. He refused.
On 4 May and 7 June 1994 further hearings were held. The court questioned one witness and an expert who had been appointed earlier. The court again asked whether the defendant would agree to undergo the DNA tests and again he refused to do so. On the latter date he challenged one of the lay judges sitting in the court panel.
On 14 September 1994 another hearing was held. The defendant again refused to undergo the DNA tests and the court heard another witness. At the subsequent hearing, which was held on 26 October 1994, the court questioned the applicant and the defendant. At the hearing held on 30 November 1994 the defendant was absent. On 16 December 1994 the court decided to close the hearing and adjourned the delivery of the judgment until 28 December 1994.
On 28 December 1994 the Zabrze District Court dismissed again the applicant’s claims. The court considered that the applicant’s testimony contained contradictory information. It further noted that she had tried not to reveal to the court certain facts established in the course of the proceedings, and relevant to the ruling in the case, such as the fact of spending a night in one room in the hotel “N” with another man during the period of possible conception. The defendant’s testimony, on the other hand, was quite consistent.
On 8 March 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Katowice Regional Court.
The first hearing in the appellate proceedings was held before that court on 25 May 1995. On 8 June 1995 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment, considering that her testimony was contradictory and that she had induced witnesses to give false testimony.
On 6 December 1995 the Minister of Justice again lodged an extraordinary appeal, considering that there had been serious errors of fact and law, in particular in that the court’s conclusions as to the facts were incompatible with the evidence before them. It was argued that the defendant’s repeated refusals to undergo the DNA tests should be assessed in a more critical manner in view of the fact that he was a physician and knew the value of such evidence in the paternity proceedings.
As a result of the Minister’s appeal, the contested judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court on 14 February 1996 and the case was remitted to the Zabrze District Court for reconsideration.
The first hearing in the proceedings took place on 28 October 1996 before the Zabrze District Court. The court ordered the defendant to take his final position as regards the DNA tests within 21 days. On 9 May 1997 the next hearing was held. The witnesses summoned for that date failed to attend. The defendant was also absent due to his professional obligations.
At the hearing held on 27 June 1997, the defendant was again absent. The applicant lodged a motion to have her claims secured by way of an interlocutory decision.
The next hearing took place on 25 November 1997 as the court encountered certain problems with locating and summoning witnesses called by the parties. The defendant again refused to undergo the DNA tests.
The next hearing was to take place on 22 December 1997, but it was adjourned as the parties were absent. The court decided to request the Warsaw District Court to hear two witnesses.
On 29 January 1998 the next hearing was held. On 16 February 1998 the Warsaw District Court questioned one of the witnesses summoned by the Zabrze District Court. The other witness did not comply with the summons both on that date and later also on 6 April 1998,when the Warsaw District Court imposed a fine of 150 PLN on that witness. He was ultimately heard on 15 June 1998.
The defendant failed to attend two hearings before the Zabrze District Court, held on 7 and 27 April 1998. On 15 June 1998 the Zabrze District Court decided to secure the applicant’s claims. The delay in deciding the motion of the applicant of 27 June 1997 resulted from the defendant’s failure to provide the court with the certificates concerning his financial situation. On 15 December 1998 the defendant lodged an appeal against this decision.
On 16 October 1998 the second applicant informed the Zabrze District Court that she wished to join the proceedings as a plaintiff alongside her mother. Unexpectedly, on 16 November 1998 the defendant informed the court that he agreed to undergo the DNA tests. On 23 November 1998 the court decided to allow the DNA tests evidence and on 22 January 1999 the court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the decision of 15 June 1998, by which the applicants’ maintenance claims had been secured.
The DNA tests were performed on 21 January 1999 in the Forensic Medicine Department of the Silesian Medical Academy in Katowice. The results of the tests gave nearly hundred per cent certainty that the defendant was the father of the second applicant. The opinion was sent to the Zabrze District Court on 25 August 1999.
At the hearing held on 19 October 1999, the applicants’ counsel proposed a friendly settlement. The hearing was adjourned until 7 December 1999. The hearing which was to be held on that date was adjourned as the presiding judge had fallen ill. At the hearing held on 3 February 2000 the parties negotiated the terms of the friendly settlement.
On 10 February 2000 the court gave a decision in which it established the paternity of the defendant and discontinued the proceedings regarding the child support due to friendly settlement concluded between the parties in this respect.
B.Relevant domestic law
Articles 417 to 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable at the material time, provided that an extraordinary appeal could be lodged against any final judicial decision with the Supreme Court by the Minister of Justice - the Prosecutor General, the President of the Supreme Court and the Ombudsman. An extraordinary appeal could be lodged on the ground that the decision was in flagrant breach of the law. A party to the proceedings could file a request to have such an appeal lodged with these authorities on his or her behalf. The Supreme Court, having examined the extraordinary appeal at a public hearing, could dismiss it if no grounds for allowing it had been established. If the extraordinary appeal was allowed, the Supreme Court could set the decision under appeal aside and rule on the merits of the case, or reject the claim and discontinue the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 17 November 1980 and ended on 10 February 2000. They therefore lasted 19 years and 3 months.
a) The Court recalls that Poland recognised the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive individual applications "from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 30 April 1993". According to Article 6 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, this limitation shall remain valid for the jurisdiction of the Court under that Protocol. It follows that the Court is not competent to examine complaints relating to violations of the Convention by acts, decisions or events that have occurred prior to 1 May 1993.
Hence, the Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began not on 7 November 1980, when the applicants lodged their action with the Zabrze District Court, but on 1 May 1993, when the declaration whereby Poland recognised the right of individual petition took effect. The period ended on10 February 2000, the date on which the Zabrze District Court gave its judgment on the merits.
However, in cases where it can, by reason of its competence ratione temporis, only examine part of the proceedings, it may take into account, in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the proceedings at the beginning of the period under consideration (see the Foti and Others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53).
It follows that the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine the applicant’s complaint insofar as it relates to the proceedings after 30 April 1993, taking into consideration the stage of the proceedings reached at this date.
b) The Court observes that on 8 June 1995 the Katowice Regional Court gave a judgment on the merits in the applicant’s case. Subsequently, on 6 December 1995 the Minister of Justice lodged an extraordinary appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court which quashed the contested judgment on 14 February 1996. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the character of the proceedings instituted before the Supreme Court following the Minister’s extraordinary appeal was such as to bring them within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention.
The Court observes that it was within the powers of the Supreme Court to examine, and in fact it did examine, whether the contested judgment of the second-instance court was in conformity with the substantive law or ill-founded, or whether there had been a substantial breach of procedure. The Supreme Court in the extraordinary appeal proceedings was competent to quash or to uphold the judgment appealed against. These proceedings must therefore be regarded as having the same character as the original proceedings, held before the Zabrze District Court and the Katowice Regional Court.
c) The Court observes that after 30 April 1993, the proceedings lasted six years, nine months and ten days.
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.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via Alt+S please REMOVE the substitute judge’s names, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Registrar.)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy