CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 janvier 2003

.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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCD369DB { width:21.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s36C0C433 { width:16.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .sDD5D58F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s2840CEAF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E43E56D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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.   47993/99 by Stanisław FLORCZYŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   January 2003 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 ,   Mr   M . O’Boyle , Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5   December   1997, 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Stanisław Florczyński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Facts prior to 1   May   1993 In November   1982 the applicant was assaulted and beaten by a certain A.M. and A.P. On 31   March   1983 the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) convicted them of assault and causing bodily harm. On 21   November   1983 the applicant filed a civil action with the Warsaw District Court against A.M. and A.P. claiming compensation for damage resulting from the assault. Before 1   May   1993 the court obtained six expert reports, heard evidence form several witnesses and held a number of hearings. The proceedings were stayed for two periods: from 10 March   1988 until 2   May   1988 and from 28   September   1988 to 28   May   1990. 2.     Facts after 1   May   1993 In November   1993 the court closed the examination of the case. The applicant asked the court to obtain further expert evidence. On 6   September   1994 the court decided to obtain medical evidence from three experts (a neurologist, a surgeon and a cardiologist). On 21   October   1994 the court asked another expert (a psychiatrist) to prepare a report. The experts submitted their opinions on 6   December   1994, 14   March   1995, 3   June   1995 and 9   October   1996, respectively. On 12   March   1997 the court held a hearing. On 13   May   1997 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to obtain evidence from yet another medical expert (a psychiatrist). It was submitted to the court on 30   June   1997. On 28   September   1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed on 17   December   1998. On 23   September   1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal delivered judgment and granted the applicant’s claim. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. 2. He also alleges a breach of Article   6 in that he did not have a “fair hearing” because the courts made serious errors of fact and law. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention 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 respondent Government. 2. The applicant further complains about unfairness of the proceedings and alleges errors of fact and law committed by the relevant courts. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article   35   §   1 of the Convention, the Court “may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law.” In that context the Court notes that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal against the final judgment given in his case by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 23   September   1999. It follows that the applicant has not complied with the requirement under Article   35   §   1 of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and, therefore, this part of the application 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 concerning the length of civil proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President