FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 11215/02 by Stanis Å‚ aw RATAJCZYK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 September 200 4 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr M. Pellonpää , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr s F . Elens-Passos , Deputy S ection Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 July 2001 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr. Stanisław Ratajczyk, is a Polish natio nal , who was born in Oulchy-le-Ville , France a nd currently lives in Namysłów , Poland .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 1 September 1992 the applicant si gned a lease contract with a co ‑ operative (the lessor). The premises were leased for the purpose of chicken-farming by the applicant. On 22 April 1993 the contract was terminated by the lessor and the applicant was barred from entering the leased premises. On 21 July 1993 the applicant brought before the Regional Court in Kalisz a civil action against the co-operative. He claimed that the lease contract had been terminated contrary to its provisions. He further alleged that as a result of the early termination he had suffered financial losses. He sought pecuniary damages and return of taxes which had b een paid by him in connection with the contract.

The first hearing in the case took place on 16 February 1993 . The following two hearings – on 12 June 1995 and 2 February 1996 - were held for the purpose of a further examination of the case by the court . An expert was appointed at the latter hearing. The judgment was given on 30 April 1997 awarding damages to the applicant in the amount lower than requested by him. The applicant appealed on 25 July 1997 . On 13 November 1997 the Court of Appeal in Łódź quash ed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the evidence was wrongly assessed and that certain facts required clarification.

The Regional Court , having re-examined the case , dismissed the applicant ' s action on 30 June 1998 . The applicant appealed on 29 July 1998 . On 13 January 1999 the Court of Appeal again quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination. It stated that the first-instance court had in part failed to assess the evidence which was crucial for the case . On 1 4 January 2000 the applicant extended his claim. On 16 February 2000 the Regional Court informed him that as a result of bankruptcy proceeding concerning the defendant co-operative , a motion had been lodged to strike it off the commercial register. In consequence, the c ourt notified the applicant that the fina l judgment would be given on 28 February 2000 . Notwithstanding that information, the case was not closed until 20 December 2000 , on which date the Regional Court decided to discontinue the proceedings , considering that the defendant co-ope rative had been liquidated and did not exist any more. The applicant appealed against the decision on 18 January 2001 , bu t his appeal was dismissed on 3 April 2001 by the Court of Appeal.

At the same time as the above proceedings had been taking place, the applicant tried to secure his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the co-operative. However, his request fo r setting up a mortgage on a co ‑ operative ' s property was dismissed since the applicant had not obtained any judgment enabling him to secure his claim. The applicant himself did not provide any detailed information on the bankruptcy proceedings and limited his submissions as to the facts to the information on the final result of the bankruptcy proceedings .

B . Relevant domestic law

On 17 June 200 4 Parliament adopted a law ' on a complaint about a breach of a right to have one ' s case heard within a reasonable time ' . It entered into force on 17 September 200 4 .

Article 2 of the Law provides for a special action by which a party to a judicial proceeding can seek a declaration that his or her right to have the case heard within a reasonable time has been breached. The court shall take into consideration the conduct of the court before which the case is pending, the character of the case and the complexity of legal and factual issues involved therein, what was at stake for the complainant, and the conduct of the parties, in particular the conduct of the complainant.

Under Article 4 , the complaint can be lodged with the court superior to that before which the proceedings concerned are pending.

Article 5 provides that the length complaint must be lodged with the competent court when the proceedings concerned are still pending.

The complainant shall submit, apart from the request that declaration be given to the effect that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time, evidence to substantiate this complaint. It is open to the complainant to request to have compensation awarded. It is also possible to request that an order be given that the court before which the case is pending takes some specific procedural measures in order to speed the proceedings up.

The complaint shall be examined by a court composed of three professional judges. The court shall inform the president before which the case is pending about the institution of the proceedings under the Act. The court shall give its decision regarding the complaint within two months from the date on which the complaint has been lodged.

Pursuant to Article 12, if the court finds that the length complaint is well- founded, it gives a ruling to this effect. If the complainant so requests, the court can also recommend that the court before which the case is pending takes certain procedural measures in the proceedings at issue. The court may also, if the complainant so requests, award an appropriate amount of money to the complainant either from the State Treasury or from the court bailiff, if the complaint relates to the delay in the enforcement proceedings, in the amount not exceeding PLN 10,000.

Pursuant to Article 15, the complainant whose complaint has been found well-founded in the proceedings provided for by the Act may, in separate civil proceedings, claim compensation from the State Treasury, or from the court bailiff and the State Treasury if enforcement proceedings were concerned, for damage arising out of excessive length of proceedings confirmed by the court under the provisions of the Act. The court, ruling on compensation in these separate proceedings, will take into account the amount awarded under the Act. The findings of fact made in the proceedings instituted under the Act are binding on the civil court dealing with a separate action for damages.

Article 16 provides that a party to proceedings who did not lodge a complaint as provided for by the Act, can claim compensation for damage arising out of excessive length of proceedings, relying on Article 4 17 of the Civil Code. Such a civil claim can be lodged only after a decision on the merits of the case has been given.

Under Article 18, within six months after the entry into force of this Act, anyone who has lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights in due time complaining of a violation of the ' reasonable-time ' requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Law No. 8 4 8 of 4 August 1955, shall be entitled to lodge a claim under Article 5 hereof provided that the application to the Court has been lodged when the proceedings were still pending and that the case has not by then been declared admissible by the European Court.

COMPLAINT S

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings .

2. The applicant also submits th at he did not have a fair hearing and that the court lacked impartiality when deciding both case s . Furt hermore, th e applicant complains about wrong assessment of the evidence in both sets of proceedings .

THE LAW

1. The app licant complains that the compensation proceedings in his case were not conducted within a reasonable time, in breach of article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which prov ides insofar as relevant:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ... ”

T he Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. T he applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 th at he did not have a fair hearing and that the court lacked impartiality in the compensation proceedings. He also complains that the court failed to assess the evidence properly . The applicant further complains about the alleged unfairness and wrong assessment of the evidence in the bankruptcy proceedings.

The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis , Schenk v. Switzerland , judgment of 12 July 1 988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46 and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain , judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports 1999-I, pp. 98-99, § 28).

In view of the information before it, and given that it has only limited power to review alleged errors of fact or law committed by national courts, the Court considers that in the proceedings under consideration there is no appearance of unfairness or arbitrariness which would infringe the guarantees of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Therefore, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant ' s complaint concernin g the allegedly unreasonable length of the compensation proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Matti Pellonpää Deputy R egistrar President