CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; 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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5B974CF2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48D61AB0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE57C276B { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55D550F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s98DFCB70 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA699FBB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 61437/00 by Jan JAGIEŁŁO against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   April 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste , judges , and   Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 1995 and registered on 3 October 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jan Jagiełło, is a Polish national, who was born in 1927 and lives in Nieciecza. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case 1.     Inheritance proceedings (a)     Facts prior to 1 May 1993 In 1980 the applicant’s wife died. On 9 December 1986 the Tarnów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) declared that the applicant and their daughter should inherit her estate. On an unknown date in 1987 the applicant filed an application with the Tarnów District Court for distribution of the estate. The court held a number of hearings and obtained several expert reports. (b)     Facts after 30 April 1993 On 24 February 1995 the applicant challenged judge Z.Z. of the Tarnów District Court, alleging that he was biased. On 2 March 1995 the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge. On 7 March 1996 the applicant challenged the impartiality of all the judges sitting in the Tarnów District Court. Those judges submitted declarations to the effect that there were no personal or any other relations between them and the applicant or his daughter which could possibly prejudice them in favour of, or against, the parties. On 17 July 1995 the Tarnów Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicant’s challenge. In the course of the first-instance proceedings the court held a number of hearings. On 25 June 1996 the Tarnów District Court delivered a final decision. On an unknown date the applicant lodged an appeal. On 18 March 1997 the Tarnów Regional Court set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case. Following the remission of the case (“ uchylenie ”), the Tarnów District Court held a number of hearings and ordered that several expert reports be prepared. It also heard evidence from several witnesses and inspected the site. On 18 December 1997, in reply to the applicant’s complaints about the length of the proceedings, the Ombudsman stated that they were indeed lengthy. He further observed that the President of the Tarnów Regional Court had supervised the conduct of the proceedings and had made monthly reports on their progress. On 20 May 1998 the applicant sent a letter to the Constitutional Court ( Trybunał Konstytucyjny ) complaining about the slow progress in the proceedings. On 23 June 1998 the court replied that it was not within its competence to supervise the conduct of proceedings before civil courts. The applicant subsequently made numerous complaints concerning the conduct of the proceedings to the Minister of Justice. On 27 August 1999 the Tarnów District Court delivered a final decision. It appears that the applicant did not appeal. 2.     Proceedings concerning an action for compensation or repossession. On 22 May 1987 the applicant filed an action for compensation or repossession of certain property items with the Tarnów District Court. On 10 August 1988 the Tarnów District Court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the inheritance proceedings (described above). It appears that the proceedings were resumed at some later and unknown date. On 10 May 1989 the Tarnów District Court again stayed the proceedings at the parties’ joint request. On 14 February 2000 the court discontinued the proceedings, finding that they had been stayed for over three years and that the parties had not requested that they be resumed. The court’s decision was based on Article 182 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to that provision, a court shall discontinue proceedings that have been stayed upon the joint request of the parties if no request for their resumption has been submitted during the three year period from the date on which they were stayed. On 10 March 2000 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 28   March 2000 the Tarnów District Court rejected his appeal   as it had been lodged outside the prescribed time-limit. 3.     Social security proceedings The applicant also submits that he was involved in proceedings against the Farmer’s Social Security Board ( Kasa Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego), which concerned the amount of his pension. On 14   August 1997 the Tarnów Social Security Board gave a decision fixing the amount of his pension. The applicant appealed. On 7 May 1998 the Kraków Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed to the Kraków Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ). On 26 October 1999 the court heard and dismissed his appeal. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of all three sets of proceedings. 2.     In respect of the inheritance proceedings, the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he has been deprived of any possibility of enjoying his property rights. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains under 6 § 1 that the length of the inheritance proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, given the length of these proceedings, he has been unable to enjoy his property rights. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54 §   3   (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 that, the length of the proceedings concerning his action for compensation exceeded a reasonable time. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the litigation (see, inter alia, Humen v. Poland, [GC], no. 26614/95, 15.10.1999, §   60, unreported). The Court notes that the proceedings began on 22 May 1987 when the applicant filed his action with the Tarnów District Court and came to an end on 28 March 2000, when that court rejected the applicant’s appeal. The total length of the proceedings was, accordingly, twelve years and ten months, of which the period of nearly seven years falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis . The Court first observes that the proceedings before the Tarnów District Court were stayed on 10 May 1989 at the parties’ joint request. They were subsequently discontinued on 14 February 2000 pursuant to Article 182 of the Code of Civil Procedure because none of the parties had submitted a request for their resumption. The Court notes that in the present case there is no indication of inactivity on the part of the court concerned. The only delay in the proceedings resulted from their being stayed upon both parties’ request. It also appears that the applicant considered that the court’s decision staying the proceedings was justified and neither at the time when it was given nor at any further stage of the proceedings did he contest its reasonableness. It follows that this part of the application must be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 3.     Lastly, the applicant complains about the length of the social security proceedings. However, and again with reference to the criteria laid down in its case law, the Court considers that the “reasonable time” requirement was respected. The impugned proceedings begun on 14 August 1997, when the Tarnów Social Security Board gave a decision fixing the amount of the applicant’s pension, and ended on 26 October 1999, when the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. They thus lasted about two years and two months. The Court notes that the issues involved in the determination of the claim were of some complexity. During the period in question, the case was examined by the courts at two instances. Furthermore, there were no delays in the proceedings which were attributable to the courts. Accordingly, this part of the application must be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to paragraph 4 of that Article. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the length of the inheritance proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” and resulted in an interference with his property rights; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President