FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 46245/99 by Henryk KREUZ against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs E. Palm , 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 17 October 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which 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, Henryk Kreuz , has a dual Polish and Austrian citizenship. He was born in 1955 and resides permanently in Austria. At present he is living in PÅ‚ock , Poland.

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

In 1989 the applicant entered into a contract with a limited liability company Unirol (hereinafter “ Unirol Ltd.”) in Płock . Under the terms of the contract Unirol Ltd. was to sell in Poland the satellite dishes supplied by the applicant from Austria.

On 25 March 1994 Unirol Ltd. filed an action with the PÅ‚ock District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) against the applicant. It sought damages for a breach of the contract.

On 21 April 1994 the plaintiff modified his claim.

On 21 June 1994 the District Court found that in view of the value of the claim it was no longer competent to deal with the subject matter and referred the case to the Płock Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ).

On 18 November 1994 the Regional Court exempted Unirol Ltd. from the court fees.

On 16 December 1994 the court held the first hearing. At that hearing the applicant submitted a counterclaim, seeking payment of profits to which he was entitled under the terms of the contract. He also applied for an exemption from court fees but to no avail. The hearing was adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.

On 17 March 1995 the trial court held a hearing. The plaintiff was absent at that hearing.

On 24 March 1995 the plaintiff’s representative informed the court that due to his illness he would not be able to appear before it until the end of June.

On 14 July 1995 the court adjourned the hearing as it appeared that Unirol Ltd. had not received the summons.

The hearing listed for 4 September 1995 was adjourned due to the illness of Unirol Ltd.’s representative.

The court adjourned three further hearings listed for 12 January, 16 February and 10 May 1996 due to the absence of the plaintiff’s representative.

On 2 August 1996 the court held a hearing but the plaintiff’s representative again failed to attend it. The court ordered him to appear at the next hearing on pain of staying the proceedings.

The hearings listed for 18 October and 8 November 1996 were adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.

On 4 November 1996 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s challenge of the presiding judge.

On 20 December 1996 the court held a hearing.

At the hearing held on 28 February 1997 the court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the judgment would be delivered on 5 March 1997.

On 5 March 1997 the court decided that it would not deliver the final decision and resumed the proceedings.

The hearing listed for 23 May 1997 was cancelled because the judges dealing with the case had withdrawn.

At the hearing held on 14 November 1997 the court heard a witness.

The hearings listed for 8 May and 5 June 1998 were adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.

In the meantime the court had lost part of the case file and, for that reason, the hearing listed for 10 July 1998 was cancelled.

On 27 August 1998 the Regional Court ordered that the lost case file be reconstructed.

On 9 June 1999 the court held a hearing and ordered the parties to specify their claims.

On 15 October 1999 the court held a further hearing and ordered that an expert report be obtained. On 12 April 2000 the expert submitted the relevant report to the court.

On 20 September 2000 Unirol Ltd. asked to court to appoint another expert.

On 8 November 2000 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from an expert.

On 22 November 2000 the PÅ‚ock Regional Court delivered a judgment . Both parties appealed. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 24 March 1994 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted more than 8 years and 8 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