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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; 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 } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sFC77BA53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 57465/00 by Krzysztof PIENIĄŻEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   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 , and   Mrs   F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 17 June 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Krzysztof Pieniążek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Gdynia, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Facts prior to 1 May 1993 On 3   July   1989 the applicant and his wife obtained a divorce decree. On 11   July   1989 the applicant filed with the Ełk District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a petition for division of the matrimonial property. On 8   September   1989 the case was transferred to the Gdynia District Court. On 14   April   1992 the court gave a preliminary decision ( postanowienie wstępne ). Before 1   May   1993 the court held nine hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses. The court also obtained evidence from two experts. B.     Facts after 1   May   1993 On 14   June and 28   June   1993 the court held hearings. At the hearing held on 5   July   1993, the Gdynia District Court delivered another preliminary decision. It was upheld on 6   October   1993 by the Gdańsk Regional Court. On 21   July   1993, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), informed him that the delay was caused by the process of obtaining evidence. The trial court held further hearings on 20   May, 10   June, 28   June   1994. On 8   July   1994 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. Between 6   February and 17   April   1997 the court held five hearings. On 7   July   1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from two experts. The next hearings were held on 17   November and 15   December   1997. In 1998 the trial court held eight hearings. On 12   October   1998 the Gdynia District Court gave a decision. It was served on the applicant on 19   March   1999. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on 1   April   1999. On 17   June   1999 the District Court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. He appealed against that decision. On 28   October   1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court granted the applicant a total exemption from the court fees due for lodging an appeal. On 18   January, 23   February and 29   March   2001 the Regional Court held hearings. On 12   April   2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a final decision. The applicant’s subsequent cassation appeal against that decision was rejected as being inadmissible in law. COMPLAINTS 1.   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case. 2.   The applicant further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the lengthy proceedings have affected his private and family life. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains under 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) to of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government. 2. The applicant further alleges under Article 8 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings has affected his private and family life. However, after considering the case as a whole, the Court observes that no separate issue arises under this provision of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza   Deputy Registrar   President