FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 38811/97 by Stanis ł aw GÓRA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 November 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 December 1996,

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 partial decision of 12 December 2000,

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, Stanislaw Gora , is a Polish national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Szamotuły , Poland.

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

A. Proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd.

1. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993

On 30 July 1987 the applicant sued the Wielkopolska Gardening Co ‑ operative ( Wielkopolska Spółdzielnia Ogrodnicza ) before the PoznaÅ„ District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ), seeking damages for loss of profits he had incurred on account of having bought defective products (pepper seeds) from the Co-operative.

On 21 September 1987 the court exempted him from court fees. At the hearing held on 3 November 1987 the court partly revoked the exemption granted.

On 3 November 1987 the court decided that the exporter of the seeds, Polcomex Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “ Polcomex Ltd.”), should be summoned and join the proceedings as a defendant. On the same date the court decided that the expert evidence be obtained.

On 13 July 1988 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Poznań Academy of Agriculture.

On 23 November 1987 Polcomex Ltd. filed its pleadings with the court.

On 31 December 1990 the applicant modified his claim and applied for an exemption from court fees.

On 4 March 1991 the court held a hearing. The next hearing (fixed for 5 April 1991) was cancelled.

Subsequently, due to the delay in obtaining the expert opinion, the court decided to appoint another expert in order to prepare the required report.

On 15 February 1993 the court revoked the exemption from court fees which it had granted to the applicant. It considered that the basis for the exemption “had ceased to exist”.

2. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 17 June 1993 the Poznań Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) upheld the decision to revoke the exemption from court fees.

On 30 December 1993 the applicant again modified his claim and applied for an exemption from court fees.

On 21 February 1994 the court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to pay the court fees due for the submission of the modified claim.

On 28 February 1994 the applicant again requested the court to exempt him from court fees. On 28 March 1994 the Poznań District Court rejected his application. On 1 April 1994 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 30 September 1994 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed his appeal.

On 8 November 1994 the applicant paid the required court fees.

On 7 January 1995 the applicant again modified his claim.

On 8 February 1995 the Poznań District Court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. It held a hearing on 8 March 1995.

On 28 April 1995 the applicant again modified his claim.

On 18 September 1995 the Co-operative filed its pleadings with the court.

On 12 February 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Skierniewice Market Gardening Institute ( Instytut Warzywnictwa ). The expert report was made on 19 May 1997 and, shortly afterwards, was submitted to the court. On 2 July 1997 the court ordered that fresh expert evidence be obtained.

On some other later date, at the Poznań District Court’s request, the Skierniewice District Court heard evidence from the expert.

On 21 January 1998 the Poznań District Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim as unfounded.

On 18 March 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment .

On 10 July 1998 the PoznaÅ„ Regional Court quashed the first ‑ instance judgment and remitted the case.

On 5 July 2000 the Poznan District Court gave judgment . On 21 October 2000 the applicant appealed. He also applied for an exemption from court fees.

On 4 January 2001 the District Court rejected his application.

On 26 January 2001 the applicant paid the court fees.

On 14 December 2001 the Poznan District Court gave judgment and dismissed his appeal.

B. Proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative

1. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993

On 22 September 1988 the applicant sued the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative ( Rolniczy Kombinat Spółdzielczy ) in the Poznań Regional Court, seeking compensation for the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land he had bought from one of the Co-operative’s members.

On 4 November 1988 the court exempted the applicant from paying 50% of the court fees.

On 27 February 1989 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. In June 1990 the court ordered that a second expert report be obtained. In October 1991 the expert submitted the relevant report to the court.

On an unknown date the applicant modified his claim. On 26 May 1992 the court ordered the applicant to pay 50% of the court fees due for that modification. On 1 June 1992 the applicant asked the court to grant him a general exemption from court fees.

2. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 7 July 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request. On 26 July 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected his appeal against that decision as being lodged outside the prescribed time-limit. On 8 October 1993, on the applicant’s appeal, the Poznań Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) quashed the Regional Court’s decision. It considered that the applicant had lodged his appeal on time. Accordingly, his appeal was transferred to the appellate court for decision.

On 8 October 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal, ruling on that appeal, upheld the decision of the Poznań Regional Court of 7 July 1993.

On 6 November 1993 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay 50% of the court fees due for submission of the modified claim.

On 15 November 1993 the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed. The Regional Court referred his request to the Poznań Court of Appeal which later sent it back to the Regional Court. The applicant submits that the courts declined to rule on his application for the proceedings to be stayed.

On 21 December 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 7 July 1993 as the question of granting him a general exemption from the court fees had already been decided.

On 21 March 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Poznań Regional Court and made an application to the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) for the case to be transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court. He also sued the State Treasury (the Poznań Regional Court) for compensation.

On 25 May 1994 the Supreme Court referred both the challenge of 21 March 1994 and the compensation claim to the Poznań Regional Court, which was the court competent to deal with the subject-matter.

On 8 November 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing. It granted the applicant a general exemption from court fees.

On 4 February 1995 the applicant modified his claim.

On 1 December 1995 the court held a hearing. It ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Poznań Agricultural Academy ( Akademia Rolnicza w Poznaniu ).

On 13 and on 18 December 1995 respectively the co-operative and the applicant requested that certain witnesses be summoned.

On 18 October 1996 the court again ordered that the Poznań Agricultural Academy prepare an expert report but the Dean of the Agricultural Department refused to do so. Subsequently, the court ordered that experts of the Poznań University drawing a report. However, the experts did not prepare the report requested.

On an unspecified later date the court ordered that the Sielinko Centre for Agricultural Assistance ( Ośrodek Doradztwa Rolniczego Sielinko ) prepare an expert report. On 1 August 1997 the report was submitted to the court.

On 2 July 1997 the applicant complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. In a letter of an unknown date in August 1997, the President of the Regional Court admitted that the applicant’s complaint was justified. He informed the applicant about the difficulties which the court had faced in finding an institution which could prepare the relevant expert report. Lastly, he assured the applicant that he would supervise the course of the proceedings.

On 4 August 1997 the court fixed the next hearing for 5 November 1997. It was subsequently cancelled. The next hearing was fixed for 21 November 1997. The court held further hearings on 27 March and on 13 October 1998 respectively.

On 27 October 1998 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment . It partly granted the applicant’s claim.

On 7 December 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Poznań Court of Appeal.

On 11 June 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

On 12 June 1999 the applicant lodged a notice of cassation appeal.

On 27 October 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgment .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

C. Proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the SzamotuÅ‚y Agricultural Co ‑ operative

1. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993

On 22 August 1988 the applicant sued the SzamotuÅ‚y Agricultural Co ‑ operative ( Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych ) before the PoznaÅ„ Regional Court, seeking damages and claiming that his plantation of cabbage and cauliflower had been destroyed, and that the plot intended for growing cucumbers had been polluted by the defendant.

On an unspecified date the applicant asked to be exempted from court fees. On 22 December 1988 the court refused his application. On 3 April 1989, on the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court amended the first ‑ instance decision and granted him a general exemption from court fees.

The court held hearings on 23 June, 11 August, 15 September and 4 October 1989.

On 16 January 1991 the court obtained expert evidence. In May 1992 it obtained a fresh expert opinion from the Poznań Agricultural Academy.

On 22 December 1992 the Poznań Regional Court partly granted the applicant’s claim.

2. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 31 August 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal, ruling on appeals lodged by both parties, partly amended the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Szamotuły District Court, ordering it to determine the amount of compensation to be granted to the applicant. It dismissed the appeal lodged by the defendant Co-operative.

At the hearing held on 30 November 1993, the applicant modified his claim. On 17 May 1994 the applicant again modified his claim.

On 28 September 1994 the Szamotuły District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Poznań Agricultural Academy. The court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that order on 25 October 1994.

On 14 July 1995 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 28 July 1995 the District Court rejected his challenge.

On 30 January 1996 the Poznań Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The case was, however, subsequently assigned to another judge.

On 3 February 1997 the court ordered that fresh expert evidence be obtained. The relevant expert report was ready on 20 March 1997.

On 31 October 1997 the Szamotuły District Court gave judgment partly granting the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 December 1997.

On 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Poznań Regional Court.

On 12 May 1998 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed his appeal. On 15 May 1998 the applicant lodged a notice of cassation appeal.

On 31 August 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgment with the Supreme Court.

On 16 October 1998 the Poznan Regional Court rejected his cassation appeal as not provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 5 November 1998 the applicant appealed. On 19 April 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd.

2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative exceeded a “reasonable time”.

3. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuly Agricultural Co-operative.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings concerning the action for damages against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co-operative and the Polcomex Ltd.. The proceedings began on 30 July 1987 and ended on 14 December 2001. They therefore lasted 14 years, 4 months and 14 days, of which a period of 8 years, 7 months and 14 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis .

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. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings concerning the delay in surrendering possession of a plot of land against the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co-operative. The proceedings began on 22 September 1988 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted [14 years, of which a period of 9 years, 6 months and 20 days] falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis .

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 are of the opinion that there has been no breach of the Convention in these proceedings.

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.

3. The applicant also complained about the length of proceedings concerning the destruction of a plantation and pollution of a plot of land against the Szamotuly Agricultural Co-operative. The proceedings began on 22 August 1988 and ended on 12 May 1998 with the Poznan Regional Court. They therefore lasted 9 years, 8 months and 3 weeks, of which a period of 5 years and 2 weeks falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis .

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 are of the opinion that there has been no breach of the Convention in these proceedings.

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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President