CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 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 } .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 } .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 } .s5B974CF2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s1B243F9B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .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 } .sDBD9E533 { width:122.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 44181/98 by Marian HAJNRICH against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   January   2003 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 8 August 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 regard to the Court’s partial decision of 31   May   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, Marian Hajnrich, is a Polish national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Świecie, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.   Facts prior to 1 May 1993 On 10   December   1992 the applicant sued the Association of the Landlords and Administrators of Houses in Świecie ( Zrzeszenie Właścicieli i Zarządców Domów ) in the Bydgoszcz Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), seeking the return of expenses incurred in connection with the modernisation of his business premises. On 3 February 1993 the court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. B.     Facts after 30 April 1993 The hearing listed for 30   June   1993 was adjourned. The court held hearings on 6   October and 16   December   1993. At the hearing held on 1   April 1994 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 6   June   1994 the expert report was submitted to the court. On 27   September   1994 the applicant modified his claim. On 5   January   1995, upon the applicant’s request, the court joined S.C., B.M. and T.R., the co-owners of the property, to the proceedings as the defendant parties. The court held hearings on 30   January and 13 May   1995. The hearings listed for 13   July   and 30   October   1995 were adjourned. On 5   February   1996 the applicant requested that the court issue an interim order to safeguard his claim in the proceedings, until a judgment on the merits would be given. On 10   June   1996 the trial court granted the applicant’s request. On 13   March and 12   April   1996 the court held further hearings. On 6   February   1997, on the defendant’s appeal, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) set aside the first-instance order of 10   June   1996. On 12   April   1997 the Regional Court appointed a legal aid lawyer for the applicant. On 28   May 1997 the court held a hearing. On 30   May   1997 the applicant applied for an exemption from court fees. It appears that subsequently the court granted his request. The hearing listed for 9   September   1997 was adjourned. On 23   October   1997 the court held a view of the site. On 28   January   1998 the court held a further hearing. On 11   February   1998 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed on 21   April   1998. On 9   October   1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held a hearing. On 23   October   1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant’s claim against the co-owners of the property and remitted the case. On 9   April   1999 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant specify his claims and adduce the relevant evidence. On 19   April   1999 he submitted his pleadings to the court. On 6   May   1999 the court ordered the applicant to specify and substantiate his claims. On 13   May   1999 the applicant submitted his additional pleadings. On 13   July   1999 the applicant modified his claim. On 8   September   1999 the court held a hearing. It partly exempted the applicant from the court fees relating to the modification of his claim. On 15   November   1999 the court revoked the exemption. On 7   December   1999 the trial court refused to entertain the modified claim as a result of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fees. From 23   February to 20   December   2000 the Regional Court held seven hearings. On 22   December   2000 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s claim against the co-owners of the property as time-barred. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. On 6   April   2001 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court rejected the appeal as the applicant had failed to pay the required court fee within the statutory time-limit. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of civil proceedings, which began on 10   December   1992 and ended on 22   December   2000 with the Bydgoszcz Regional Court. They therefore lasted 8 years and 2 weeks, of which the period of 7 years, 7 months and 3 weeks falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis . 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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas BRATZA Deputy Registrar President