CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mai 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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s10F9E4BE { width:199.47pt; 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. 34824/02 by Małgorzata WOJDALSKA and Adam WOJDALSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 September 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Małgorzata Wojdalska and her son Mr Adam Wojdalski, are Polish nationals living in Łódź. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. By a judgment of 2 August of 1989 the Łódź District Court convicted the applicants of handling stolen goods and sentenced the first applicant to two years imprisonment and the second applicant to two years and nine month imprisonment. The court stayed the execution of the sentence in respect of the first applicant. Some pieces of evidence against the applicants, mainly jewellery, which had been found in the applicants’ apartment, was secured by the police and deposited with the court. The applicants appealed against this judgment. By a judgment of 9 November 1989 the Łódź Regional Court amended the contested judgment and changed the legal qualification of the offence. As a result, certain jewellery remained deposited with the court and some other pieces were returned to the applicants. On 8 December 1989 the applicants lodged a civil action with the Łódź Regional Court against the Łódź Regional Police Office, claiming that certain objects be returned to them. They also claimed compensation. The applicants subsequently lodged several complaints with the Łodź Regional Court about the lack of progress in the proceedings. On 25 May 2001 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. The applicants appealed. By a judgment of 18 January 2002 the Łodź Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal and upheld the contested judgment. On an unspecified later date the applicants requested the court to grant them an exemption from the court fees in the cassation proceedings. By a decision of 23 April 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed their request. By a decision of 4 June 2002 the Łódź Regional Court rejected the applicants’ cassation appeal as not complying with the applicable procedural provisions of Polish law.     COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time. They also complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the civil proceedings against the Łódź Regional Police Office. THE LAW 1. The applicants’ complain under Article 6 § 1 that the civil proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case 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 applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the civil proceedings against the Łódź Regional Police Office. The Court recalls that according to Article 19 of the Convention, its 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. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). The Court finds no elements, which would indicate that the national courts went beyond their proper discretion as to the assessment of the evidence before them, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. 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 applicants’ complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.     Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas BRATZA   Registrar   President