FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 77681/01 by R.P.D. against Poland

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

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki, Mr J. Borrego Borrego , judges ,

and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 1999,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr R.P.D., is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Lublin , Poland.

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

The applicant underwent a heart operation in the Child Health Centre Hospital ( Centrum Zdrowia Dziecka ) in Warsaw- Międzylesie from 11 April to 27 May 1988. I n May and June 1995 the applicant had been diagnosed with jaundice, which he considered to be a result of medical negligence.

On 10 September 1996 the applicant’s mother filed an action for damages on his behalf with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) against the Child Health Centre Hospital. The applicant claimed that he had contracted jaundice during his stay in the hospital in 1988. In addition, he claimed that as a result of medical negligence he suffered from complications, including heart arrhythmia.

In March 1997 the defendant’s counsel submitted his pleadings to the court. On 1 June 1997 the applicant’s mother asked the court to adjourn the hearing until 30 June 1997 so that she would have sufficient time to prepare a reply to the defendant’s submissions.

The first hearing was held on 20 November 1997.

On 11 December 1997 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court.

On 7 September 1998 the applicant asked to be granted legal aid. On 8 September 1998 the court granted his request and decided that the Warsaw Regional Bar would designate a lawyer for him.

On 29 September 1998 the applicant increased his claim.

The hearing listed for 5 October 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s mother, since the Warsaw Regional Bar had not complied with the court’s decision of 8 September 1998. The court again requested the Warsaw Regional Bar to designate a lawyer for the applicant.

On 16 December 1998 the court held a hearing. The applicant’s counsel asked the court to order preparation of an expert report.

On 11 February 1999 the court ordered preparation of an expert report by a panel of doctors (cardiologist and epidemiologist) from the Polish Mother Health Centre Hospital ( Centrum Zdrowia Matki Polki ) in Łódź .

On 24 March and 16 April 1999 the experts submitted their reports to the court. On 15 May 1999 the applicant challenged both reports.

In her pleadings of 16 December 1999, the defendant’s counsel argued that the Child Health Centre Hospital could not be a defendant in the case because it did not have standing in the proceedings and that the proper defendant should be the Minister of Health ( Minister Zdrowia ).

On 13 March 2000 the court held a hearing.

On 24 March 2000 the court summoned the Minister of Health (representing the State Treasury) to join the proceedings as a defendant.

On 9 October 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court changed its decision of 24 March 2000 and summoned the Governor of Mazowsze as a defendant.

On 18 April 2001 the Regional Court ordered an expert to prepare a report. On 11 February 2002 the expert submitted his report to the court.

The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 10 September 1996 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted more then 6 years and 6 months.

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