FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 37770/97 by Andrzej KRZEWICKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 12 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 Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 July 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, Andrzej Krzewicki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Łódź , Poland.

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

A. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993

From 1981 to 30 May 1991 the applicant was a member of the “ Bolesławów ” Agriculture Co-operative in Łódź ( Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Przetwórstwa Owoców i Warzyw “ Bolesławów ” ). On 31 July 1992 the applicant sued the co-operative before the Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), seeking repayment of his indexed membership shares ( udziały członkowskie ) in connection with the termination of his membership in the co-operative. On 21 September 1992 the Regional Court partly exempted the applicant from court fees.

On 8 January 1993 the defendant co-operative partly acknowledged the applicant’s claim and requested that the court dismiss the remainder of it.

On 29 April 1993 the applicant requested that the court list a hearing in the case since nine months had elapsed from the moment on which he had lodged his claim.

B. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 21 September 1993 the court held the first hearing. During the hearing the expert summoned by the court requested his discharge. The court agreed, considering, apparently, that it was not necessary to obtain expert evidence. The parties presented their pleadings. Further, the court ordered the defendant co-operative to submit certain decisions of its general assembly ( uchwały walnego zgromadzenia ) and ordered the applicant to submit some documentary evidence as well. It adjourned the proceedings sine die .

On 25 September 1993 the applicant’s pleadings together with relevant decisions were submitted to the court.

On 17 May 1994 the court held the second hearing. It ordered that the accountant of the co-operative provide information about the management of the co-operative’s assets and address the issue of the calculation of the applicant’s claim, including the manner of indexation of the membership shares. In addition, it ordered the defendant co-operative to submit its statutes before 20 June 1994 and adjourned the hearing. The applicant contends that the court did not react to the delay with which these documents were presented. The Government deny it, arguing that on several occasions they had reminded the defendant to comply with the court’s order. The documents were eventually submitted to the court on 1 October 1994.

The third hearing was held on 23 March 1995. The court heard evidence from the accountant of the co-operative concerning the decisions of the co-operative and the manner of indexation of the co-operative’s shares. At one point, the court interrupted her testimony in view of delays (apparently in the court’s agenda for that day) and decided to continue hearing evidence from her at the next hearing. It ordered the defendant co-operative to submit the minutes of its general assembly and its decisions. The court adjourned the hearing sine die .

On 4 May 1995 the applicant requested that the court issue an interim order ( zarządzenie tymczasowe ) and enjoin the co-operative from selling or encumbering ( obciążania ) its property in order to safeguard his claim in these proceedings, until a judgment on the merits would be given. The applicant argued that the defendant co-operative deliberately obstructed the proceedings and that, according to the information disclosed at the hearing on 23 March 1995, it was not willing to settle the case but rather intended to declare its own liquidation. The applicant claims that in view of the lack of any reaction on the part of the court in respect of the first request, on 12 June 1995, the applicant submitted it again. The Government denies it.

On 5 July 1995 the court refused to issue the interim order since the property of the co-operative was entered in the land register (a lack of entry was a statutory prerequisite to granting the applicant’s request). It also considered that the applicant’s claim was unfounded. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Łódź Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ). On 7 September 1995 that court upheld the first-instance decision.

On 16 November 1995 the Regional Court held the fourth hearing. The accountant of the co-operative, summoned as a witness, did not appear before the court due to illness. The court heard evidence from the applicant and oral submissions of the lawyer of the defendant co-operative. It ordered the defendant to submit a decision of the co-operative’s general assembly and adjourned the hearing sine die in view of the witness’ absence.

The next hearing, listed for 16 April 1996, was adjourned due to the illness of the presiding judge.

On 20 April 1996 the applicant complained, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, about the length of the proceedings to the President of the Łódź Regional Court. On 30 April 1996 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that each judge of the Civil Division of that court had 130 cases on his/her list and that therefore, the intervals between the hearings often exceeded six months. In addition, the President, taking into account that the proceedings concerned had already lasted for nearly four years, instructed the Chief Judge of the Civil Division of the Regional Court to list a hearing in the case. The applicant’s complaints about the length of the proceedings addressed to the Minister of Justice were forwarded to the Łódź Court of Appeal. On 24 May 1996 the President of the Court of Appeal, considering that the proceedings had been excessively lengthy, informed the applicant that he would supervise the proceedings.

On an unknown date in April 1996 the general assembly of the defendant co-operative decided its voluntary winding-up and subsequently an entry to that effect was made in the co-operative’s register. The accountant of the co-operative was appointed as its liquidator ( likwidator ).

On 18 June 1996 the court held the fifth hearing. The accountant of the co-operative, summoned by the court, did not appear. She sent a letter to the court explaining that, in view of the auction to be held by the co-operative, she could not be present at the hearing. The court adjourned the hearing until 22 October 1996 and summoned the accountant to appear. In addition the court ordered the defendant to submit certain documentary evidence, including a copy of the entry made in the co-operative’s register which concerned the winding-up.

In the meantime, on 24 June 1996 the applicant again complained to the President of the Łódź Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings, in particular about the fact that the court had accepted for the second time the unjustified absence of the accountant summoned as a witness. On the above-mentioned date the applicant also sent a letter to the President of the Łódź Court of Appeal, inquiring about the relevance of his administrative supervision of the proceedings in question. In his reply of 2 July 1996, the President of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that he would not interfere with the decision of the Regional Court to adjourn the hearing since that decision fell within the sphere of judicial independence. In addition, he informed the applicant that it was not possible to schedule the hearing before 22 October 1996. The applicant also sent a letter to the Ombudsman, complaining about the delay in the proceedings.

In the meantime the case was assigned to a new judge. On 24 September 1996 the court held a hearing.

The hearing scheduled for 22 October 1996 was adjourned due to the illness of the presiding judge.

On 28 February 1997 the court held the last (seventh) hearing. According to the applicant’s submissions, the court invited him to settle the case. Subsequently, the parties reached a friendly settlement on the terms that the defendant co-operative would pay the applicant a sum of 1,000 new Polish zlotys (which amounted to 15% of the original claim) and that he would withdraw the remainder of his claim. Consequently, on the same date, the court discontinued the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal against that decision, considering that doing so would be to no avail in view of the co-operative’s liquidation.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 31 July 1992 and ended on 28 February 1997. They therefore lasted 4 years, 6 months and 28 days, out of which the period of 3 years, 9 months and 27 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President