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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA284A115 { width:11.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sA08EDB5D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:13.5pt } .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 } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 75930/01 by Henryk SZCZERBIN 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 3 August 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant was a Polish national born in 1953. He is represented before the Court by his wife Krystyna Szczerbin.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   1.   First set of proceedings   On 12 September 1994 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Zielona Góra Regional Court, claiming compensation from the company “D.” for its failure to pay a lease rent to them. By a judgment of 7 April 1997 the Zielona Góra Regional Court ordered the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant. The defendant appealed. By a judgment of 6 August 1997 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the first-instance court for reconsideration. By a judgment of 4 May 1999 the Zielona Góra Regional Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. By a judgment of 26 September 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the first-instance court for reconsideration. The proceedings are currently pending before the Zielona Góra Regional Court.   2.   Second set of proceedings   On an unspecified date at the beginning of 1999 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Zielona Góra Regional Court claiming a supplementary compensation from “D” company. The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court and there apparently has been no progress in the case.     COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that both sets of the compensation proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time. THE LAW 1.     The Court first notes that the applicant died on 29 October 2001 and that his wife has requested that the proceedings before the Court be continued. The Court recalls that when an applicant dies during the proceedings, the heirs or next of a kin of the applicant may in principle pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf provided that they are shown to have a legitimate interest to justify the continuation of the examination of the case (the Ahmet Sadík v. Greece judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, pp. 1651-1652, §§ 24-26; Krempovskij v.   Lithuania (dec.), no. 37193/97, 20 April 1999). The Court considers that the applicant’s widow has a legitimate interest to maintain the case in his stead. 2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that both sets of the compensation proceedings have 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.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides that the applicant’s widow can continue the proceedings on his behalf; Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of civil proceedings.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President