FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 45994/99 by Tadeusz STRZELECKI 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 introduced on 20 December 1998,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Tadeusz Strzelecki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland.

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

On 18 October 1993 the applicant, together with a certain Mr W, filed with the Katowice Regional Court an action in which he claimed remuneration from a certain company B for the use of a patent on an invention made by him and W.

On 20 December 1993 the court held a hearing. In January 1994 it ordered an expert opinion.

In October 1995 the experts submitted their opinion. At the hearing held on 28 November 1995 the applicant’s lawyer requested that that opinion be supplemented, considering that it was not complete.

In the letter of 12 December 1995, written in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the President of the Katowice Court of Appeal admitted that the proceedings were lengthy and pointed out that the delay had been caused by the experts appointed in the case.

In June 1996 the applicant raised an additional claim against the defendant. In October 2001 the examination of that claim was adjourned to another set of proceedings.

In October 1996 an expert refused to prepare an opinion, submitting that the case was too complex.

On 3 November 1996 the Regional Court requested a group of experts from the Jagiellonian University in Kraków to prepare that opinion.

On 19 March 1997 the court asked the experts from the university to send back the case-file, submitting that the amount of remuneration for the opinion suggested by them would have to be covered by the State Treasury and such an option could not be accepted.

In August 1997 the court transmitted the case-file to experts from the Wrocław Regional Rationalisation Club ( Wojewódzki Klub Racjonalizacji ). The experts submitted their opinion to the court in August 1998.

The hearing scheduled for 18 December 1998 was adjourned. Subsequently, the defendant submitted its observations in respect of the expert opinions.

The court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 24 June 1999.

It held a hearing on 16 September 1999.

In 18 January 2000, at the request of steelworks K, against which the applicant had raised his claims in the course of the proceedings, the court stayed the proceedings until the completion of a procedure before the Patent Office ( UrzÄ…d Patentowy ).

On 8 November 2000 the Patent Office declared that the dehydration of a building belonging to steelworks K was not covered by the patent to which company B was entitled. On 1 August 2001 the Appellate Commission at the Patent Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. Subsequently, he requested the Ombudsman to file an extraordinary appeal against that decision, but to no avail.

On 16 November 2000 the Patent Office declared the expiration of the patent owned by company B. The Appellate Commission rejected the applicant’s appeal against that decision, considering that he had no standing in the proceedings.

On 25 October 2001 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.

In July 2002 he lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court an appeal against the decision of the Appellate Commission of the Patent Board, together with a request for retrospective leave to appeal out of time.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the court proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time.

2. He complains under Article 6 § 1 that the Regional Court’s decision not to order an expert opinion from the Jagiellonian University allegedly deprived him of access to a court. The applicant further complains under the same provision about the alleged lack of impartiality of the judges and the allegedly erroneous manner of the admitting and assessing of evidence.

3. He complains under Article 13 that he has been deprived of an effective remedy in respect of all the breaches of the Convention alleged by him. The applicant makes reference to the proceedings before the civil courts, the Patent Office and the Ombudsman.

4. Finally, he complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he has been for a long time unable to make use of his patent. The applicant makes reference to alleged manipulations of the defendant company. He appears to challenge the outcome of the proceedings before the Patent Office, submitting that that authority obstructed his efforts to regain his rights to the patent.

THE LAW

1. The applicant raises various complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:

“ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

(a) As far as the applicant’s complaints relate to various aspects of the fairness of the proceedings, the Court notes that they are still pending before the domestic courts, before which he can raise, at least in substance, the complaints which he is now putting before the Court. Therefore, these complaints must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

(b) In so far as the applicant complains about the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains that his right to property has been violated, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1, which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

(a) The Court notes that the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims are still pending before the domestic courts, before which he can raise, at least in substance, the complaint which he is now putting before the Court. Therefore, in so far as this complaint relates to the proceedings before the civil courts, it must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

(b) As regards the proceedings conducted by the Patent Office, without prejudice to the issue as to whether the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, the Court observes that the first set of those proceedings concerned the relation between a project carried out on property belonging to steelworks K and the patent owned by company B. In the other set of patent proceedings the applicant was not even considered as a party to them, because he was not the owner of the patent under dispute. The Court further notes that, as it was mentioned above, the applicant’s claims in respect of the patent are being examined by the civil courts. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the proceedings before the patent authorities could affect his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

(c) In so far as the applicant complains that his inability to enjoy property rights in respect of the patent has resulted from the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings, the Court would observe that it is far from established that he has claims in respect of which he could argue that he has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia , Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII ). These doubts seem even more justified in the light of the judgment of the Katowice Regional Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claims. In these circumstances the contention that any undue delay in the examination of the applicant’s case may raise an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 appears far-fetched.

Therefore, this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant raises complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

(a) The complaints under Article 13 in respect of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and the alleged interference with the applicant’s property rights must be rejected for the same reason as the respective complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that is for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see above).

(b) In so far as these complaints concern the issue of an effective remedy in respect of the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

(c) The Court notes that the applicant’s allegation of the lack of an effective remedy in the proceedings before the Patent Office is connected with his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. T he Court reiterates that an effective remedy is required only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention (see Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV). Having regard to the above findings in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No.1, the Court notes that the applicant cannot claim to have an arguable claim of a violation of his right to respect for property in the proceedings before the Patent Office. Therefore, his complaint under Article 13 in this respect must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

(d) The Court further observes that the applicant appears to challenge the Ombudsman’s refusal to file an extraordinary appeal on his behalf. However, the Convention does not guarantee, as such, a right to extraordinary appellate remedies (see, mutatis mutandis , A. K. and T. K. v. Poland , no. 28863/95, Commission decision of 1 July 1998, unreported ). It follows that this part of the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect thereof;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President