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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCD369DB { width:21.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s36C0C433 { width:16.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sECB494D3 { width:174.13pt; 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. 62109/00 by Jan MEJER and Mirosława JAŁOSZYŃSKA 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 , Mr   M.   O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 1999, 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 applicants, Mr Jan Mejer and Ms Mirosława Jałoszyńska, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1942 and 1944, respectively, and live in Wrocław. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 19   May   1994 the applicants, employees of the Wrocław Technical University ( Politechnika Wrocławska ) and members of a trade union, were informed by their employer that as from 1   September   1994 their employment contracts would be modified and that they would be transferred. On 24   May   1994 the applicants sued the Wrocław Technical University in the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ), seeking the annulment of the employer’s decisions. The court joined their actions. As a result of the applicants’ refusal to accept the proposed changes to their employment contracts, they were dismissed from their jobs with effect from 31   August   1994. Subsequently, the applicants modified their claims and filed actions for reinstatement with the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court. On 15   September   1994 the court held a first hearing in the case. It imposed a fine on the defendant for having failed to appear before the court. The hearing listed for 20   October   1994 was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s lawyer. On 6   December   1994 the court adjourned a hearing because the defendant had not produced certain documents. The hearing listed for 10   January   1995 was adjourned since the defendant’s lawyer contested the power of attorney of the applicants’ representative, a member of their trade union. The hearing listed for 27   January   1995 was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was ill. On 24   February   1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the parties and witnesses. On 10   March   1995 the second applicant asked the court not to fix hearings on Wednesdays and Fridays, since she would not be able to appear before the court. At the hearing held on 1   June   1995 the court heard evidence from other witnesses. On 16   June   1995 the court ordered that the case file be obtained from the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ). On 6   July and 28   September   1995 the court held further hearings. On 7   December   1995 the court held a hearing and again ordered the defendant to produce certain documents. Some of those documents were submitted to the court on 23   December   1995. At the hearing held on 5   January   1996 the court heard evidence from the parties. On 16   January   1996 the District Court gave judgment. The applicants appealed. On 16   April   1996 the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) held a hearing. On 30   April   1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The hearing before the District Court listed for 31   July   1996 was adjourned because the defendant’s lawyer had failed to appear before the court. On 4   October   1996 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from a witness. The hearing listed for 5   December   1996 was adjourned because a witness had not appeared before it. On 7   February   1997 the District Court gave judgment and ordered that the applicants be reinstated. On 2   April   1997 the District Court granted the applicants’ request for interpretation of the judgment. The defendant appealed. On 27   January   1998 the Wrocław Regional Court held a hearing. On 28   April   1998 the court adjourned a hearing at the request of the applicants’ lawyer. On 9   July   1998 the court ordered the defendant’s lawyer to produce certain documentary evidence. On 17   September   1998 the court adjourned a hearing because a summoned witness had not appeared before the court. On 26   November   1998 the court held a hearing and heard a witness. On 10   December   1998 the Regional Court amended the judgment of the District Court of 7   February   1997. It set aside the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicants’ reinstatement and awarded them compensation for unlawful dismissal. On 1   March   1999 the Regional Court refused the applicants’ request for revision of the judgment. The applicants lodged their cassation appeals with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ). On 15   October   1999 the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case. On 9   May and 5   September   2000 the court held hearings. At the hearing held on 28   November   2000 the applicants challenged two judges of the Regional Court. On 12   December   2000 the court dismissed their request as unfounded. Subsequently, on 2   February   2001 the applicants challenged seven judges of the Wrocław Regional Court. On 15   March   2001 the court dismissed this request as unfounded. Another hearing was held on 26   June   2001. At the hearing held on 5   July   2001 the Regional Court gave judgment. On 28   September   2001 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court. THE LAW The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 24   May   1994 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted more than 8 years and 10 months. According to the applicants, 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 applicants’ 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