CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .s22EE5141 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:162pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF4468799 { margin-top:162pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 22072/02 by Sławomir MAŁASIEWICZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   December 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki, judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 25   May 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sławomir Małasiewicz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In June 1995, on his way to work, the applicant bought a bottle of sparkling mineral water. While he was opening it, the bottle exploded and its metal cap hit the applicant’s left eye. The accident, despite the subsequent surgeries and medical treatment, resulted in the applicant’s loss of vision in his left eye. He was declared an invalid and was granted a disability pension by the Social Security Board ( Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ). In August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for compensation and pension against the producer of the mineral water. He submitted medical certificates issued by the Częstochowa and Katowice Hospitals which had treated his injury. On 23 October 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Court exempted the applicant from the court fees. On an unspecified date the “S” assurance company joined the proceedings as an intervener. On 15 November 1997 the trial court held the first hearing at which it heard the applicant. Subsequently, the court held hearings on: 15 December 1997, 25   August, 2   November and 12 November 1998 at which it heard witnesses. On 8 December 1998 the court, sitting in camera , ordered a medical expert opinion. Subsequently, the case was taken over by another judge. On 14 May 1999 the court received an expert opinion. Between November 1998 and September 1999 no hearings were held. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 8   September 1999, 12   January and 14 June 2000. At the hearing held on 13   December 2000 the trial court requested another medical expert opinion. On 4 April 2001 the court received the expert opinion. On 20 June 2001 the court held a hearing at which it requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s pension. The next hearing, which was held on 20 March 2002, was adjourned until 29   October 2002. The proceedings are pending before Częstochowa Regional Court. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. 2.     He also alleges a breach of Article 6 § 1 in that he did not have a “fair trial”. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the responded Government. 2.     The applicant further complains that he did not have a “fair trial”. However, the Court notes that the proceedings in question are still pending before the Częstochowa Regional Court and that, therefore, this complaint is premature. It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the length of the proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible .   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President