CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 février 2004

.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 } .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 } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB1F95EB2 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCED9EACD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 61437/00 by Jan JAGIEŁŁO against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 April 1995, Having regard to the Court’s partial decision of 30   April   2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Jan Jagiełło, is a Polish national who was born in 1927 and lives in Żabno, Poland. The circumstances of the case In 1980 the applicant’s wife died. On 9   December   1986 the Tarnów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) declared that the applicant and their daughter should inherit her estate. On 18   December   1986 the applicant filed an application with the Tarnów District Court for distribution of the estate. The court held a number of hearings and obtained several expert reports. On 24   February   1995 the applicant challenged judge Z.Z. of the Tarnów District Court, alleging that he was biased. On 2   March   1995 the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge. On 7   March   1996 the applicant challenged the impartiality of all the judges sitting in the Tarnów District Court. On 17   July   1995 the Tarnów Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicant’s challenge. In the course of the first-instance proceedings the court held a number of hearings. On 25   June   1996 the Tarnów District Court delivered a final decision. On 22   July   1996 the applicant lodged an appeal. On 18   March   1997 the Tarnów Regional Court set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case. Following the remission of the case, the Tarnów District Court held a number of hearings and ordered that several expert reports be prepared. It also heard evidence from several witnesses and inspected the site. On 18   December   1997, in reply to the applicant’s complaints about the length of the proceedings, the Ombudsman stated that they were indeed lengthy. On 20   May   1998 the applicant sent a letter to the Constitutional Court ( Trybunał Konstytucyjny ) complaining about the slow progress in the proceedings. The applicant subsequently made numerous complaints concerning the conduct of the proceedings to the Minister of Justice. On 27   August   1999 the Tarnów District Court delivered a decision. The decision is final. Events that took place after the case was communicated On 1   August   2002 the applicant submitted his written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. In a letter of 5   June   2003 the Registrar proposed to the parties to reach a friendly settlement. The applicant was invited to inform the Court about his position by 4   July   2003. He failed to do so. On 29   July   2003 he was again asked to respond to an enclosed friendly settlement proposal within three weeks. The applicant failed to reply. On 10   October   2003 the Registry sent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, a letter to the address indicated by the applicant. The applicant was asked to explain his failure to observe the procedure fixed in his case. The applicant was further warned that if he failed to respond to that letter within 3 weeks, the Court might conclude that he no longer intended to pursue his application. It emerges from the relevant acknowledgement of receipt that the letter was delivered to the applicant’s second wife on 20   October   2003. No reply was received. A further letter was sent to the applicant by registered post on 17   December   2003 seeking confirmation as to whether he wished to continue with the application. He was advised that if no response was received by 7   January   2003 the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. The letter was served on the applicant’s second wife on 31   December   2001. The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6§ 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. 2.     He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention that he has been deprived of any possibility of enjoying his property rights. THE LAW The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention. The respondent Government invited the Court to reject the application as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. 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 that 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 failed to submit within the time-limit his reply to four communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 17   December   2003. In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of his 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