CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .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 } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s36C0C433 { width:16.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE2AF9DFA { width:20pt; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s71220220 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s609BC690 { width:175.32pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 46247/99 by Andrzej KUCHARCZYK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   September 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 ,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 April 1998, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrzej Kucharczyk, was a Polish national who was born in 1944. By letter of 22   May   2003, the applicant’s daughter, I.K., informed the Court that the applicant had died on 12   January   2003 and that she wished to pursue the application in her late father’s stead. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant entered into a contract with two companies “Rap” PPH and “Ebejot”. On 20   July   1992 the applicant filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) against those companies. He sought damages for a breach of contract. From 4   June to 22   October   1993 the court held five hearings. On 22   October   1993 the court ordered an expert opinion. At the hearing held on 12   November   1993 the court delivered a partial judgment. On 12   March   1994 an expert submitted his opinion to the court. On 5   May   1994 the applicant asked the court to secure his claim. The court dismissed that application on 11   July   1994. Between 15   December   1994 and 4   January   1996 the court held four hearings. Meanwhile, the court asked the applicant to specify his claim. On 5   February   1996 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court. On 29   February   1996 the court held a subsequent hearing and ordered that evidence from two experts be obtained. On 17   June   1997 the first expert (an accountant) submitted his report to the court. At the hearing held on 17   April   1998 the court heard evidence from that expert. On 4   May   1998 the applicant modified his claim. On 26   August   1998, in reply to the applicant’s complaints, the president of the Warsaw Regional Court informed him that the delay in the proceedings was caused by fact that the presiding judge had been on holiday. On 24   September   1998 the second expert (an engineer) submitted his report to the court. On 29   January   1999 the trial court held a hearing. At a hearing held on 26   March   1999 the Regional Court closed the examination of the case. On 31   March   1999 it reopened the examination of the case. A further hearing was held on 18   May   1999. On 28   May   1999 the Warsaw Regional Court delivered a judgment. Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) gave judgment on 7   February   2000. The judgment is final. B.     Events that took place after the case was communicated On 30   January   2003 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 23   April   2003 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 24   April   2003 the applicant was invited to file his pleading in reply by 23   May   2003. In reply, the applicant’s daughter, I.K., informed the Court that the applicant had died on 12   January   2003 and that she wished to pursue the application in his stead. On 18   February   2004 the applicant’s daughter was asked to submit her pleadings in reply to the Government’s observations of 23   April   2003 by 11   March   2004. She failed to do so. On 2   April   2004 she was again asked to submit her observations in reply to the Government’s observations by 30   April   2004. She did not reply. On 2   July   2004 the Registry sent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, a letter to the address indicated by the applicant’s daughter. 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 3 weeks, the Court might conclude that she no longer intended to pursue the application. It emerges from the relevant acknowledgement of receipt (signed by “Z.M.K”- the applicant’s widow) that the letter was delivered on 8   July   2004. The applicant’s daughter has not to date resumed her correspondence with the Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 that the length of the proceedings in his case had exceeded a “reasonable time” THE LAW The Court notes at the outset that the applicant died after the introduction of the application and his daughter, I.K., 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 daughter is entitled to 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 daughter did not submit within the time-limit her reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 23   April   2003. 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 2   July   2004. In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant’s daughter 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases. Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President