CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s42715068 { width:268.5pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 43978/98 by Stanisław KĘPA against Poland     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 July 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress, President ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo,   Mr   L. Caflisch,   Mr   J. Makarczyk,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 August 1997 and registered on 19 October 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 1931 and living in Nowogard, Poland.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     1)   Facts prior to 1 May 1993     In 1972 the applicant sustained injuries in a car accident, caused by an employee of a certain company. The applicant sued the company in the Goleniów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ).   In 1974 the court granted the applicant a monthly allowance compensating him for loss of his ability to work ( renta uzupełniająca ).     In 1992, on the applicant’s request, the court increased the amount of the allowance. On 27 November 1992 the Szczecin Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) dismissed his appeal as being lodged out of time.     2)   Facts after 1 May 1993     On 30 August 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Goleniów District Court. He requested the court to increase his allowance but he did not specify the amount sought.     The court exempted the applicant from court fees due for lodging his claim and granted him legal assistance on 8 March and 22 June 1994 respectively. The first hearing was held on 6 April 1994.     In January 1995 the case was transferred to the Szczecin Regional Court since, in view of the value of the claim, the District Court was no longer competent to deal with the subject-matter.   The Regional Court held hearings on 2 February, 8 June and 13 October 1995.   On 8 December 1995 the applicant sued the defendant in the Szczecin Regional Court, seeking compensation.     The court held the next hearing on 25 January 1996. On 7 February 1996 the Szczecin Regional Court granted the applicant’s claim for increased allowance. On 29 October 1996, on the both parties’ appeal, the Poznań Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.     On 23 March 1998 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’ request for the judges dealing with his case to be disqualified.     On 20 December 1998 the applicant modified his claim for compensation. On 30   December 1998 the court held a hearing.     On 21 April 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court granted the applicant’s claim for increased allowance and dismissed his compensation claim. On 4 November 1999, ruling on the applicant’s appeal, the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.     On 10 January 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ), contesting the judgment of the Poznań Court of Appeal.     The proceedings are pending.     COMPLAINTS   1.   The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings. He does not invoke any specific provision of the Convention.   2.   The applicant, without invoking any provision of the Convention, also complains that the proceedings have been unfair.       THE LAW   1.   The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings.     The Court finds that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     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 further complains that the proceedings in question have been unfair.     The Court finds that this complaint also falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     However, the Court notes that, insofar as the applicant complains about the events which took place before 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland’s declaration recognising the right of individual petition took effect, the present application is inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.     In respect of the events which took place after 1 May 1993, the Court observes that the relevant proceedings are still pending and that, therefore, the complaint is premature.     It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible and that it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the length of the proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.         Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President     [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)