FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 52074/99 by Stefan WIATRZYK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 July 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr L. Garlicki , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Miedźno , Poland.

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

In October 1991 the applicant was dismissed from work.

On 21 October 1991 he filed with the Częstochowa District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a petition in which he requested that he be reinstated in his former post and awarded compensation.

On 18 May 1992 the court stayed the proceedings until the completion of criminal proceedings against the applicant, considering that courts’ findings in those proceedings could affect the outcome of the employment dispute.

On 31 July 1992 the criminal court gave judgment. On 27 November 1992 the second-instance court quashed it and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 22 May 1995 the District Court discontinued the labour law proceedings, because three years had passed since the date of staying them. On 25 July 1995 it allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed that decision.

On 3 November 1995 the criminal court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, considering that the theft of two boxes of glue committed by him was of an insignificant nature.

On 23 February 1996 the second-instance court acquitted the applicant.

On 15 May 1996 the District Court gave judgment in respect of part of his claim. It reinstated the applicant in his former post. On 6 August 1996 the second-instance court dismissed his employer’s appeal against that judgment.

On 4 March 1997 the court ordered an expert opinion concerning the calculation of the applicant’s lost earnings. It was submitted in August 1997. In September 1997 the court ordered a supplementary opinion.

At the hearing held on 14 January 1998 it requested the preparation of another supplementary opinion. It was submitted on 16 June 1998.

The court held a hearing on 5 February 1999. Subsequently, the parties exchanged their observations as to the amount of compensation for the applicant.

On 15 February 2000 the court held a hearing. On 20 April 2000 it ordered a supplementary expert opinion.

On 26 September and 14 November 2000 the court held hearings. On the former date it refused the applicant’s request for an interim order.

On 28 December 2000 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant compensation for the lost earnings. Both parties appealed.

On 16 May 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) held a hearing.

On 31 May 2001 it dismissed a challenge to the participation in the proceedings of a judge lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. The court imposed a fine on the lawyer for having used that remedy in bad faith.

On 13 June 2001 the court dismissed both appeals against the judgment of the District Court. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

On 19 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s appeal.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 21 October 1991 and ended on 19 November 2001. They therefore lasted 10 years and 29 days, out of which a period of 8 years, 6 months and 18 days falls within the Court’s competence 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