CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .s10F9E4BE { width:199.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41033/98 by R.W. against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8   October 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 December 1997, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw. He is not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government are represented by Mr K. Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In March 1982 the applicant got divorced. On 30 September 1982 his former wife filed with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a request for the partition of the property of the spouses. The request related to 147 items and a shared flat in a housing co-operative building. The Government submit that between 27 December 1982 and 2   December 1987 the court held 19 hearings. The applicant states that one of the hearings referred to by the Government was never held and four others were only in camera sittings. In 1985 and 1986 the court ordered six expert opinions. According to the Government, on an unspecified date after 2 December 1987 the case-file was lost. In 1992 the applicant lodged a further request for the partition of the property. He informed the Warsaw District Court that the place of residence of his former wife was unknown and it was impossible to bring her before the court. The applicant maintains that he had difficulties in establishing her place of residence. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for her. On 22   May 1992 it gave judgment. The Government submit that after the completion of those proceedings the applicant formally reported his former wife’s departure to Germany. In December 1992, after her return to Poland, the applicant’s former wife requested the re-opening of those proceedings, relying on the applicant’s misinformation as to the alleged lack of knowledge of her residence in Germany. On 22 July 1993 the Warsaw District Court quashed the decision issued in those proceedings. In January 1994 the lost case-file was found. The court held hearings on 14 January, 4 March, 16 May, 5 August and 14 November 1994. The Government submit that the applicant failed to attend the hearings of 14   January, 4 March and 16 May 1994. The applicant maintains that he was present at the hearing on 14 January 1994 and that his absence on 16 May 1994 was justified. The court held a hearing on 12   June   1995. On 18 July 1995 the court ex officio made attempts aimed at converting the disputed flat into smaller ones. Between July 1995 and January 1996 it enquired with various authorities as to possible solutions to the dispute. The hearing scheduled for 30 September 1996 was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant submits that his lawyer had an operation on his heart. Further hearings were held on 6 January, 14 April and 18 September 1997. According to the applicant, the hearing of 18 September 1997 was in fact an in camera sitting. The applicant requested the adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 30   January 1998. Subsequent hearings were held on 25 May 1998 and 25 February 1999, as well as on 7 January and 3 March 2000. On several occasions the applicant’s former wife failed to attend hearings or her lawyer failed to submit certain documents or pleadings. The court ordered expert opinions concerning the value of objects located in the applicant and his former wife’s flat, their cars and jewellery. On 25 May 2000 the applicant learnt that the case-file had been lost again. It was subsequently found. The applicant failed to attend the hearing scheduled for 18 December 2000. According to the Government, the hearing scheduled for 19 April 2001 was adjourned at the applicant’s request. He submits that no hearing was scheduled for that day. The court held a hearing on 11 May 2001. At the hearing held on 21 September 2001 it ordered an expert opinion. A hearing was held on 11 February 2002. The proceedings are still pending. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 30 September 1982 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted   20 years and 9 days, out of which the period of 9 years, 5 months and 8 days falls within the Court’s competence ratione temporis , Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993. 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.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President