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 } .sF50B9DC9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:150pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF33CC11E { margin-top:150pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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. 75183/01 by Józef GOLA 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 ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki, judges ,   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 20   November 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Jόzef Gola, is a Polish national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Kołobrzeg, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Facts prior to 1 May 1993 On 15 July 1992 the applicant asked the Kołobrzeg District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) to issue an order for payment against K.P.(“the defendant”). The applicant sought the payment of 475,690,000 old Polish zlotys (PLZ). On 28 July 1992 the court granted the applicant’s claim and ruled that the defendant was to pay the sum in question. The defendant appealed. On 30 April 1993 the Koszalin Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewόdzki ) gave judgment. It upheld the first-instance decision. B.     Facts after 30 April 1993 On 4 February 1994, on the parties appeal, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) set aside the judgment and remitted the case. On 20 September 1995 the Koszalin Regional Court gave judgment. It upheld the order for payment of 28 July 1992. The defendant appealed on a later unknown date. On 24 April 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. On 13 May 1997 the Koszalin Regional Court adjourned the hearing as the judge rapporteur was not present. On 2 June 1997 the applicant asked the court to set a date for a hearing as soon as possible due to the delay in the proceedings. On 17 December 1997 the court gave judgment and upheld the order for payment of 28 July 1992. The defendant appealed. On 9 February 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. On 10 April 2002 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) gave judgment. In the course of the proceedings the applicant complained about their length to different authorities (the President of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, the Ombudsman and the Minister of Justice). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. 2.     The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains under 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 part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings. The Court reiterates that according to Article 19 of the Convention, the Court’s duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties in the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, §   28, ECHR   1999-I). The Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing. Assessing the proceedings complained of as a whole, the Court finds no indication that they were unfairly conducted. It follows that this part of the application is therefore 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. 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 inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President