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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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. 77746/01 by Waleria KROENITZ 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 28 July 2000 and registered on 13 December 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Waleria Kroenitz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1903 and lives in Przemyśl. In the proceedings before the Court she is not legally represented. She provisionally appointed as her representative her cousin, Mr   Sławski, who is an engineer. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Proceedings before the Częstochowa Regional Court. In 1948 the applicant’s property was expropriated. On 28 June 1996 the Minister of Economy annulled the expropriation order. On 23 December 1996 the applicant brought a claim against a company “Domgos” ( Częstochowskie Zakłady Metalowe “Domgos” ) before the Częstochowa Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), seeking restitution of her property. The court held hearings on 30 May, 10 July and 17 October 1997. On 30 January 1998 the applicant modified her claim and filed an action for compensation for loss of profits caused by the prolonged impossibility of using her property. On 8 March 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court held a hearing and gave an interlocutory judgment. It ordered that the property be restored to the applicant. On 22 March 1999, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Minister of Justice acknowledged that they were indeed lengthy and promised to supervise their conduct. On 9 December 1999 the court was to hold a hearing, but an expert failed to appear because he had not been duly summoned. On 27 January 2000 the court held a hearing. Meanwhile, the expert had submitted his report to the court. On 23 March 2000 the court held a hearing and appointed another expert. A hearing listed for 15 February 2001 was cancelled since the expert and the defendant failed to appear. The hearing listed for 29 March 2001 was adjourned as the court had ordered the expert to prepare a supplementary report. On 21 February 2002 the court held a hearing. On 8 March 2002 the Regional Court gave judgment. The judgment is not final. B.     Proceedings concerning a claim for compensation against the State Treasury. On 26 April 1998 the applicant requested the Minister of Economy to award her compensation. On 22 May 1998 the Minister dismissed her request. On 24 June 1998 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court an action for compensation against the State Treasury (the Minister of Economy). On 22 September 2000 the court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 7 March 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) held a hearing. On the same date the court gave judgment. The applicant filed a notice of cassation appeal. The cassation proceedings are apparently pending. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of both sets of proceedings. 2.     She also alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that she cannot enjoy her property rights. 3.     Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the protracted length of the proceedings amounted to inhuman treatment. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains under 6 § 1 that the length of both sets of proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government. 2. The applicant further complains that the protracted length of the proceedings has prevented her from enjoying the use of her property. She invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government. 3.     The applicant further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the protracted length of the proceedings amounted to inhuman treatment. The Court observes that, while the length of the proceedings may be a source of stress and anxiety to the applicant, it cannot be said to have reached the threshold of treatment proscribed by Article 3. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and 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 complaints that the length of the civil proceedings in her case exceeded a “reasonable time”, and resulted in an interference with her property rights. Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President