CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 45299/99 by Lidia BARAŃSKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   June 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   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 February 1998, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Lidia Barańska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Poznań, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In March 1988 the applicant became divorced. She has two children, who were at that time about two years old and four years old respectively. On 22 May 1988 she filed with the Poznań District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a petition in which she sought the division of the shared property of her and her former husband. The court held hearings on 29 September and 11 November 1988, 4   April and 30 May 1989, 24 March, 24 May, 28 August and 25 October 1990, 4 February, 24 August and 18 November 1992, 27 January, 12 May and 19 August 1993, 9 November 1994, 11 January, 22 February, 26 April, 21 June and 25 August 1995, 9 February, 3 July, 16 October and 15   November 1996, 23 May and 31 December 1997, as well as 16 January 1998. It ordered a number of expert opinions concerning the value of the disputed property. On 16 January 1998 the court gave judgment. It granted the applicant, inter alia , the right to a flat in a housing co-operative and several objects located there. Her husband was granted, inter alia , a car and he was supposed to pay a certain sum to the applicant. The court pointed out that the parties to the proceedings had contested each other’s statements in respect to most of the objects and on a few occasions had changed their own statements. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 22 May 1988 and ended on 16 January 1998. They therefore lasted 9 years, 7 months and 25 days, out of which the period of 4 years, 8 months and 15 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis , Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993. 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 application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President