CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 novembre 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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s71220220 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8AB5E19 { width:28.69pt; display:inline-block } .sEDEADA37 { width:146.63pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s6C2D746E { width:198.98pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38814/97 by Mieczysław KUŹDUBOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   November 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki, judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 May 1995, 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 regard to the partial decision of 6   July   2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mieczysław Kuźdubowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Kalisz. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was employed in the Zjednoczone Zakłady Gazów Technicznych in Warsaw, a state owned company, which was subsequently acquired by the Liquid Carbonic Poland Ltd (“LCP”). In 1989 the applicant and his colleague T.J. invented a new, modernised system of water management for their company ( projekt racjonalizatorski pt. Modernizacja gospodarki wodnej w WGT Polgaz ). The system came into use in March 1990. Under the relevant legislation the applicant and T.J. should have been remunerated for their project. They had reached the settlement with the company in respect to the payment but it was not effected. Subsequently, the applicant and T.J. sued the company for payment. They filed their statement of claim with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) on 19 May 1993. On 29   June   1993 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay court fees. Later, on an unspecified date the court granted him an exemption from court fees. On 21   July   1993 the applicant modified his claim. On 27   October   1993 the court held a hearing. The Government submit that the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing. The applicant argues that he had never asked for the hearing to be adjourned. On 28   October 1993 the applicant submitted a settlement proposal. In a letter of 22   November   1993 “LCP” informed that the applicant’s claim was partially granted and asked him to submit further documentary evidence. On 24   November   1993 the applicant filed another statement of claim. On 29 November   1993 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court yet another statement of claim. On the same date he also withdrew his statement of claim of 24   November   1993. On 27   April   1994 the court held a hearing but the applicant failed to appear. The court held further hearings on 20   February 1995, 29   June   1995 and 7   February, 10   June, 23   October   1996. It heard evidence from the applicant and five witnesses. The applicant submits that on an unknown date in November or December 1996 the court held yet another hearing. The applicant was not present during the hearing held on 20   January   1997. On that date the court heard evidence from an expert. On 31   January   1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 12   February   1997 one expert returned the case-file submitting that he was not competent to prepare a report. On 25   February   1997 the court transferred the file to another expert, who again was not competent to deal with case. On 26   May   1997 the Warsaw Regional Court asked yet another expert to prepare a report. In his letter of 26   June1997 the applicant asked the court to reverse its decision to obtain expert evidence and to determine the claim on the basis of evidence as it stood at that time. Despite that, on 8   July   1997, the court ordered that evidence from a new expert be obtained. On 28 October   1997 the report was submitted to the court. The applicant contested the report. On 16   February   1998 the court held a hearing. It closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the final decision would be delivered on 2   March   1998. The applicant was present during that hearing. The Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment on 2   March   1998 in the applicant’s absence. The applicant appealed but he failed to comply with formal requirements which resulted in his appeal being eventually rejected by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 5   February   1999. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time”. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court observes that the period to be considered under Article 6 § 1 began on 19 May 1993 when the applicant filed his action with the Warsaw Regional Court and ended on 2   March   1998. The proceedings therefore lasted 4 years 9 months and 14 days. The Court, assessing the reasonableness of the length of the time in question, will have regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, 15 October 1999, §   59, unreported). The Court considers that although the subject matter of the litigation was not particularly complex, the case involved a degree of procedural complexity as it concerned an invention project and technical documentation attached to it. With regard to the conduct of the national authorities, the Court firstly observes that there was a period of inactivity in the proceedings (from 27   April   1994 and 20   February   1995) during which no hearing took place. However, except for that single gap, the Court does not find any other failure to proceed with the case on the part of the authorities. It is true that no hearing was held between 20   January   1997 and 16   February   1998. However, the court did not remain passive. During that period it contacted several experts in order to obtain a report. As regards the conduct of the applicant, the Court observes that he contributed to the length of the proceedings. In particular, on three occasions (21   July, 24   November and 29   November   1993) the applicant modified his claim which clearly caused some delay. Furthermore, he failed to attend hearings on two occasions. In conclusion, regard being had to all the circumstances of the case and more particularly, to the conduct of the applicant and the procedural complexity of the case, the Court considers that the impugned proceedings do not disclose unreasonable delay within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza   Deputy Registrar   President