CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 mai 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8BB8FC25 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sAAD5D99A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s5AE3DA4A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC114D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s128F7B00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC5AA3C3D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5FAF523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB226B86 { width:221.66pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA0D91B4B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 51669/99 by Renata PAŁYS against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 17 May 2001 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 , and   Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,   Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 April 1999 and registered on 6 October 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Renata Pałys, is a Polish national, born in 1956 and living in Wrocław, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 14 January 1986 the applicant filed with the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) an action for damages against the Wrocław Regional Hospital ( Wojewódzki Szpital Zespolony ). She claimed that as a consequence of the negligence of obstetricians attending her during the delivery of her child in 1983 she had suffered injuries and had had to undergo several gynaecological operations. The applicant complained that she felt pain while walking and even sitting for a longer period of time. In addition, she claimed that as a result of the injuries she could no longer work as a pantomime artist and was declared a disabled person. In this regard, she sought lost earnings.   The proceedings are pending before the Wrocław Regional Court. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 14 January 1986 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted fifteen years and four months, out of which eight years fall within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis . 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.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President