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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 63389/00 by Adolf OSTROWSKI 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 on 17 October 1998, 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 applicant, Mr Adolf Ostrowski, is a Polish national living in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Wojciech Hermeliński, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 28   December   1993 the applicant sued the Polmozbyt State Enterprise   ("the Polmozbyt") in the Łódź District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ), seeking return of payment made for an allegedly defective car. On 30   May   1994 the applicant modified the amount of his claim. On 21   June   1994 the court ordered an expert report to be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 28   September   1994. On 3   October   1994 and 9   March   1995 the applicant again modified the amount of the claim. On 18   January   1995, FSO Warszawa, the manufacturer of the car, joined the proceedings as an intervener ( interwenient uboczny ) on behalf of the defendant. At the hearing held on 30   June   1995 the court heard evidence from the parties and witnesses. On 9   August   1995 the court held a hearing and heard several witnesses. The applicant modified the amount of his claim for the fourth time. The hearing listed for 13   September   1995 was adjourned. A further hearing was held on 6   October   1995. On 19   October   1995 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained. The report was submitted on 29   November   1995. On 1   March   1996 the court held a hearing and heard the experts. At the hearing held on 29   April   1996 the court held an inspection of the car and heard evidence from two experts. On 2   July   1996 the court requested the laboratory of the Łódź Regional Police Headquarters ( Wojewódzka Komenda Policji ) to prepare an expert report in respect of the defects of the car paint. On 25   July   1996 the laboratory informed the court that it was not competent to prepare the report. On 23   December   1996 the court quashed its order of 2   July   1996. On the same date it also ordered that the report at issue be obtained from the Institute of Forensic Experts (Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych) in Kraków. The applicant could not place his car at the disposal of the Institute because the car registration book had not been renewed due to technical defects of the car. The court held a hearing on 5   December   1997. On   17 December   1997 the applicant challenged the participation of the judge rapporteur in the proceedings. On 30   January   1998 the Łódź District Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge as unfounded and imposed a fine on the applicant (for submitting a baseless challenge). On 12   October   1998 the Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) upheld the decision of the District Court. On 20   January   1999 the court held a hearing. The applicant was not present. On 21   January   1999 the applicant’s wife informed the court that her husband was ill and would not be able to appear before the court. None of the parties appeared at a hearing held on 24   February   1999. On 5   March   1999 the court stayed the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to provide information as regards the state of his car. The proceedings were resumed on 30   July   1999. On 22   September   1999 the court held a hearing. On 29   September   1999 the Łódź District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 16   February   2000 the applicant asked the court to grant him leave to appeal out of time. On 20   June   2000 the court refused his request. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 28   December   1993 and ended on 29   September   1999. They therefore lasted 5 years and 9 months. 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