FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications nos. 46072/99 and 46076/99 by Janusz ZAÅšKIEWICZ against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 June 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs E. Palm , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , judges ,, and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 3 November 1998 and 19 January 1999 respectively,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Janusz Zaśkiewicz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Poznań , Poland.

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

1. Proceedings against company X

On 21 February 1994 the applicant filed with the Łódź Regional Court ( sąd wojewódzki ) an action in which he claimed damages from one of his partners in a partnership allegedly responsible for a sale of the partnership’s property without the applicant’s prior approval. He sued also a certain company X which had purchased that property.

On 10 March 1994 the court exempted the applicant from court fees.

On 14 March 1994 it refused the applicant’s request for an interim measure. His appeal against that decision was dismissed on 16 May 1994 by the Łódź Court of Appeal ( sąd apelacyjny ).

On 5 May 1994 the applicant submitted pleadings with a ninety-five-page annex. In July and October 1994, as well as in December 1995, he submitted further pleadings and requested the summoning of five witnesses.

The Regional Court held a hearing on 11 January 1996. It completed the examination of the case and informed the parties that it would pronounce its judgment on 25 January 1996. Subsequently, the applicant submitted pleadings containing motions concerning evidence. On 25 January 1996 the court resumed the examination of the case.

The hearing scheduled for 27 February 1996 was adjourned because of the absence of a lay judge.

On 27 March 1996 the court held a hearing.

On 10 April 1996 it declared its lack of jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims in respect of his partner and transferred that part of the case to the Łódź District Court ( sąd rejonowy ).

The Regional Court held hearings on 26 November 1996, as well as on 29 January, 1 April and 23 July 1997. It ordered an expert opinion.

On 15 September 1997 the court refused the applicant’s request for an interim measure.

The expert opinion was submitted on 5 February 1998.

Subsequently, the applicant challenged that opinion.

At the hearing held on 11 May 1998 the court ordered a supplementary expert opinion.

At the hearing of 25 June 1998 the court completed the examination of the case.

Subsequently, the applicant filed a petition in which he complained about certain errors in the minutes from that hearing. On 7 July 1998 the court issued a decision concerning those errors.

On 6 July 1998 the applicant submitted pleadings. On 9 July 1998 the court resumed the proceedings and requested the applicant to specify his claim.

In September 1998 the applicant requested the court to summon a customs office to join the proceedings as an intervener for the applicant.

At the hearing held on 9 November 1998 the court dismissed that request. The applicant requested the written reasoning of that decision. On 18 November 1998 his request was rejected as not provided for by the law.

On 19 November 1998 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant 32,345.23 Polish zlotys with interest. Both the applicant and the defendant company appealed.

The Łódź Court of Appeal held hearings on 9 April and 1 June 1999.

On 15 June 1999 it gave judgment. The court amended the judgment of the first-instance court in that it dismissed the action filed by the applicant. He received a copy of the written reasoning of that judgment on 4 April 2000. On 4 May 2000 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against that judgment.

On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal.

2. Proceedings concerning overdue rent

On 26 January 1996 company Y filed with the Łódź Regional Court an action in which it requested that the applicant pay overdue rent for a building he had rented from that company.

On 9 October 1996 the applicant raised a counterclaim.

On 13 November 1996 the court granted his request for exemption from court fees.

The court held hearings on 21 October 1996, 28 July 1997, as well as on 23 March and 27 April 1998.

On 11 May 1998 it gave judgment. The court ordered the applicant to pay overdue rent and dismissed his counterclaim. The applicant appealed.

On 16 September 1998 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the part of the applicant’s appeal relating to company Y’s claims. However, it quashed the part of the first-instance judgment concerning the applicant’s counterclaim and remitted the case in that part for re-examination.

The hearing scheduled by the Łódź Regional Court for 17 March 1999 was adjourned because of an illness of the opposing party’s representative.

At the hearings held on 10 and 21 May 1999 the court imposed fines on a witness for his failure to attend those hearings.

In his pleadings of 19 August 1999 the applicant requested that that witness be escorted to the court for the following hearing.

On 20 September 1999 the court held a hearing at which it ordered an expert opinion and reversed the fines imposed on the witness. In his pleadings of 27 September 1999 the applicant extended his counterclaim against company Y.

On 17 May 2000 the expert opinion was served on the applicant. It numbered 117 pages.

On 19 May and 6 June 2000 the applicant submitted further pleadings.

On 10 August and 2 November 2000 he requested that a hearing be held, since the expert opinion had been already prepared.

On 24 November 2000 the court held a hearing.

In his pleadings of 4 December 2000 the applicant further extended his counterclaim.

On 27 December 2000 he submitted pleadings in which he requested, inter alia , that a hearing be held.

The applicant submitted further pleadings on 4, 15 and 17 January 2001.

On 25 January 2001 he lodged with the President of the Łódź Court of Appeal a complaint about the length of the proceedings.

On 21 February 2001 the court ordered another expert opinion.

On 23 February 2001 the applicant submitted further pleadings.

In her letter of 5 March 2001, written in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the President of the Łódź Regional Court admitted that the proceedings were lengthy and explained that the delay had been caused in part by the expert, who had failed to prepare the opinion within the time-limit, and by the change of the presiding judge. She further informed that the proceedings would be taken under her administrative supervision. On 5 April 2001, replying to the applicant’s comments to her letter of 5 March 2001, the President of the Regional Court stated that she upheld her standpoint presented in that letter.

On 8 June 2001 the applicant modified his claim.

On 18 July 2001 the court held a hearing. On 25 July it ordered a supplementary expert opinion.

On 10 August 2001 the court requested the expert to accelerate his work on that opinion and fixed a thirty days’ time-limit for its completion.

In August 2001 the applicant modified his claim.

On 16 November 2001 the court held a hearing.

On 14 December 2001 it gave judgment. The court granted in part the applicant’s counterclaim. Both parties appealed.

On 21 March 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal held a hearing.

On 17 April 2002 it dismissed both appeals.

On 20 May 2002 the court ordered the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal on behalf of the applicant.

On 21 March 2003 the Supreme Court rejected that cassation appeal.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaints relate to the length of two sets of proceedings.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant:

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

The Court recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, inter alia , Comingersoll v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).

1. Proceedings against company X

The proceedings began on 21 February 1994 and ended on 16 January 2002. They therefore lasted 7 years, 10 months and 23 days.

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.

2. Proceedings concerning overdue rent

The proceedings began on 26 January 1996 and ended on 21 March 2003. They therefore lasted 7 years, 1 month and 26 days.

The Government are of the opinion that the case was rather complex and point out that the one-hundred-and-seventeen-page expert opinion ordered by the Regional Court had to be twice supplemented. They submit that the applicant’s conduct contributed to the delay and make reference to, inter alia , several instances of changing his counterclaim. The Government blame also the plaintiff for the prolongation of the proceedings. They are of the view that the domestic courts showed due diligence in conducting the proceedings. The Government emphasise that the Regional Court imposed fines on a witness for his failure to attend hearings. They note that that court requested an expert to accelerate the preparation of an opinion and fixed a time-limit for its completion.

The applicant is of the view that the case was simple. He denies having contributed to the delay in the proceedings. The applicant submits that the modification of his claim could actually expedite the examination of the case. He is of the opinion that three expert opinions were irrelevant to the case. The applicant states that in 2000 the presiding judge was replaced, which prolonged the proceedings. He points out that between 16 September 1998 and 20 September 1999 the court held three hearings in order to examine three witnesses, as a result of their absence.

The Court agrees with the Government that the case discloses some degree of complexity. It notes that the applicant contributed to the delay by modifications of his claim and submitting numerous pleadings.

The Court observes that there were certain periods when the Regional Court remained inactive, especially between the hearings of 20 September 1999 and 24 November 2000. On the other hand, it must be noted that that court adopted measures to expedite the examination of the case, such as the imposition of fines on a witness for his failure to attend a hearing or instructing an expert to accelerate his work. The Court further observes that in the course of the proceedings courts at two judicial levels twice gave their judgments and the Supreme Court issued the final decision, which makes altogether five judicial decisions. Having regard to the overall duration of the procedure and the above considerations, the Court finds that the proceedings were not conducted unreasonably long. It thus considers that the length complaint in respect of these proceedings 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

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaint relating to the excessive length of the proceedings against company X;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President