FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 53284/99 by Wanda ROMANIAK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , 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 on 22 March 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Wanda Romaniak , is a Polish national, who was born in 1929 and lives in Głosków . She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Gaczyński and Mr M. Szewczyk , lawyers practising in Warszawa.

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

On 17 September 1980 M.T. lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court, claiming dissolution of a co-ownership which he shared with the applicant. The land property consisted of two adjoining parcels of land and a building, which had been built from the petitioner’s and the applicant’s financial resources for the purpose of a business activity.

On 3 April 1981 the Warsaw Regional Court issued a decision allowing M.T. to use part of the property during the duration of the proceedings. By the same decision, the court prohibited the demolition of any of the facilities which were in the building.

Subsequently, hearings were held on 1 September 1982, 8 October 1982, 28 January 1983, 13 February 1984, 9 May 1984, 29 October 1984, 19 December 1984 and 2 April 1985.

By a partial judgment of 29 April 1985 the Warsaw District Court ruled in favour of the applicant.

Upon appeal, on 28 April 1986 the Warsaw Regional Court reversed the decision of 29 April 1985.

Between 1986 and 1991 three hearings and one on-site inspection were held by the court.

On 7 July 1990 the Ministry of Justice, following the applicant’s complaint about the length of proceedings, examined the facts and considered the complaint justified, having found that an expert opinion had not been prepared within the time-limit fixed and that no efforts had been made by the court to discipline the experts. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice took the case under its administrative supervision.

On 23 April 1992 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision dissolving the co-ownership of the disputed property in favour of the applicant. She was, however, obliged to pay off the petitioner.

On 12 October 1992 and on 13 October 1992, the applicant and the petitioner respectively, lodged their appeals against the above-mentioned decision.

On 6 April 1993 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision forbidding the petitioner to take down the fence.

By a judgment of 7 May 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the decision of 23 April 1992 because of procedural mistakes committed in the proceedings and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.

On 11 October 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the decision of 6 April 1993.

On 16 March 1994 a hearing took place before the Warsaw District Court.

On 18 April 1994, E.I., the applicant’s lawyer, withdrew from the case.

On 16 May 1994 new expert evidence was ordered to be taken.

On 15 November 1994 the expert report was submitted to the court.

On 3 March 1995 a hearing was held.

On 7 April 1995 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings because K.C., a co-owner of the property, had died and the legal successors of the deceased had to be established.

Subsequently, hearings were held on 12 September 1995 and 29 October 1995. On 12 September 1995 the information about legal successors was submitted to the court. On 29 October  1995 the District Court dismissed the request for re-opening the proceedings. On 15 February 1996 the Regional Court quashed this decision.

On 19 September 1996 the court decided to stay the proceedings until a motion for acquisitive prescription of a property submitted by J.C. had been examined. The applicant’s lawyer claims that this property did not constitute a part of the property in question and hence there was no reason to stay the proceedings.

On 25 November 1996 the court held a hearing in order to examine the applicant’s claim for return of a part of the building.

On 10 December 1996 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision prohibiting the petitioner from carrying out any reconstruction works.

On 17 April 1997 the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the decision of 10 December 1996.

On 20 May 1997 the applicant lodged a motion concerning two expert opinions and requested the court  to resume the proceedings.

On 2 July 1997 the Warsaw District Court re-opened the proceedings.

On 29 September 1997 a hearing took place before the Warsaw District Court. The court ordered the preparation of an expert opinion.

On 18 November 1997 the court held a hearing.

On 8 April 1998 H.S. submitted his expert opinion to the court.

On 14 July 1999, upon the applicant’s request, the trial court ordered a supplementary opinion to be prepared by H.S.

On 3 November 1999 H.S. submitted the supplementary opinion to the court.

On 24 November 1999 a hearing took place before the Warsaw District Court. Neither the applicant’s curator nor her lawyer appeared at the court hearing.

On 15 March 2000 a hearing was held before the Warsaw District Court.

On 29 March 2000 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings because two participants in the proceedings had died.

On 29 August 2000 the Warsaw District Court refused to re-open the proceedings due to the fact that the participants had failed to submit a decision ascertaining their inheritance rights.

On 5 January 2001 the Warsaw District Court re-opened the proceedings.

On 28 March 2001 a hearing was held before the Warsaw District Court. The court obliged the participants to submit the decision confirming their inheritance entitlements.

On 29 June 2001 a hearing took place before the Warsaw District Court. According to the Government’s submissions, the court stayed the proceedings because the participants had failed to submit the decision ascertaining their rights to an inheritance from J.W.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 17 September 1980 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted 22 years, 11 months and 22 days, out of which the period of 10 years, 4 months and 8 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis , Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993.

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