CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 novembre 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 } .sF06E89EC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s391DB599 { width:218.01pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 44161/98 by R.L. against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   November 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 March 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the Court’s partial decision of 31   May   2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr R. L., is a Polish national who was born in 1922. By letter of 6   September   2001, the applicant’s widow, B.L., informed the Court that the applicant had died on 8   August   2001 and that she wished to pursue the application in her late husband’s stead. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In June 1988 the applicant bought a new car from the Polmozbyt State Enterprise in Łódź (hereinafter “the Polmozbyt”). On 1 February 1991 he sued the Polmozbyt and the PTHM Polmozbyt company (“the second defendant”), an authorised dealer of the Polmozbyt in Warsaw before the Warsaw-Praga District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). He requested the court to order that the defendants replace his allegedly defective car with a new one. Prior to 1 May 1993 the court held five hearings. Between 18   August   1993 and 8   March   1994 the trial court held six hearings. On 27   May   1994 an expert submitted his report to the court. The court held hearings on 6   September   1994, 18   July and 5   September   1995. On 13   September and 1   October   1996 the applicant complained to the President of the Warsaw-Praga District Court and the President of the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) respectively about the excessive length of the proceedings. Further hearings were held on 7   November, 17   December   1996 and 19   February   1997. On 28   February   1997 the District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 23   June   1998 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) ordered that fresh expert evidence be obtained. From 3   October   1997 to 15   March   1999 the Regional Court held eight hearings. On 27   September   1999 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against this judgment. B.     Events that took place after the case was communicated On 6   June   2001 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that the Court had decided to give notice of his application to the Polish Government. The applicant did not reply. On 3   September   2001 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 4   September   2001 the applicant was invited to file his pleading in reply by 16   October   2001. On 19   September   2001 the applicant’s wife, B.   L., informed the Court that the applicant had died and that she wished to pursue the application in his stead. On 5   March   2003 the applicant’s widow was asked to submit her pleadings in reply to the Government’s observations of 3   September   2001 by 17   April   2003. She did not reply. On 18   June   2003 the Registry sent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, a letter at the address indicated by the applicant’s widow. She was asked to explain her failure to observe the procedure fixed in the case. She was further warned that if she failed to respond to that letter within 4 weeks, the Court might conclude that she no longer intended to pursue the application. It emerges from the relevant acknowledgement of receipt (signed by B.L.) that the letter was delivered to her on 23   June   2003. The applicant’s widow has not to date resumed her correspondence with the Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings in his case. THE LAW The Court notes at the outset that the applicant died after the introduction of the application and his widow, B.L., has informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application. The Court recalls that it has accepted on a number of occasions that the close relatives of a deceased applicant may be entitled to take his or her place (see for instance the Scherer v. Switzerland judgment of 25   March   1994, Series A no. 287, p. 14-15, § 31). In the present case, the Court accepts that the applicant’s widow may pursue the application. However, the Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Polish Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers it does not have to deal substantively with the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” In this respect the Court notes that the applicant’s widow did not submit within the time-limit her reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 3   September   2001. She has also failed to respond to two further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 18   June   2003. In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant’s widow does not intend to pursue the application and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , that would require it to continue the proceedings by virtue of that provision. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President