FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 38564/97 by Barbara JANIK 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 30 May 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 partial decision of 6 July 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, Barbara Janik, is a Polish national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Stalowa Wola .

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

On 7 June 1990 the Stalowa Wola District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) dissolved the relationship resulting from joint ownership of matrimonial property ( wspólność ustawowa małżeńska ) between the applicant and her husband. On 10 June 1991 the court granted a divorce decree.

1. Proceedings concerning the property adjustment order

On 2 October 1990 the applicant filed an application for a property adjustment order ( wniosek o podział majątku dorobkowego ) with the Stalowa Wola District Court. The matrimonial property consisted of, among other things, commercial estate and shares in a limited liability company. On 9 October 1990 the case was transferred to the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ). On 16 May 1991 the court stayed the proceedings. It discontinued the proceedings on 6 September 1991.

On 21 December 1993 the applicant filed a new application for a property adjustment order. She also requested the court to secure the claim.

On 10 January 1994 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from payment of court fees. On 28 February 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court issued an interim order enjoining her ex-husband from disposing of their matrimonial property and exempted the applicant from payment of court fees.

On 29 June 1994, ruling on the defendant’s appeal, the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court amended the interim order by limiting its scope to a certain part of the matrimonial property. On 28 April 1995 the Regional Court referred the applicant’s request for her claim to be secured to the District Court.

In the meantime, on 16 March 1994, the District Court had stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for annulment of contracts concluded by her ex-husband (see below 2). The applicant appealed against this decision. On 18 August 1994 the Regional Court quashed the contested decision and instructed the lower court to join the action concerning annulment of contracts to the petition for a property adjustment order.

On 6 September 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court decided to join these two cases and then, during the hearing held on 14 October 1994, it reversed its previous decision and decided to deal with them separately. On 12 April 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the latter order as being lodged out of time. The applicant appealed. On 5 June 1995 the Sandomierz Branch of the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed her appeal.

On 26 July 1995, on the applicant’s request, the District Court granted her retrospective leave to appeal against the order of 14 October 1994.

On 5 October 1995 the Sandomierz Branch of the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed her appeal.

On 13 October 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for the case to be transferred to the Regional Court. On 10 November 1995 the Regional Court dismissed her appeal. The Rzeszów Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) upheld this decision on 12 January 1996.

In the meantime, on 4 December 1995 the applicant had requested the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court to reopen the proceedings concerning the security order of 28 February 1994.

On 11 March 1996 the Stalowa Wola District Court stayed the proceedings because it considered that the future property adjustment depended on the outcome of the proceedings relating to the annulment of contracts concluded by the defendant. On 23 April 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for further examination.

Subsequently, the court held hearings on 1 August and 23 August 1996.

On 17 October 1996 the District Court dismissed the defendant’s request for the interim order of 28 February 1994 to be amended. He appealed.

On 28 October 1996 the applicant requested the District Court to supplement the security order of 28 February 1994.

On 28 November 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the proceedings concerning her request to secure her claim to be resumed.

On 15 January 1997 the Stalowa Wola District Court rejected the applicant’s request for her claim to be secured. The applicant appealed.

On the same date the District Court ordered that an expert report be prepared by a certain TC company.

On 11 February 1997 the District Court dismissed her request for her ex-husband to be ordered to produce documentary evidence. On 28 February 1997 the court dismissed another, similar request.

On 7 March 1997 the District Court dismissed her appeal against the decision of 11 February 1997.

On 19 March 1997 the applicant requested the Stalowa Wola District Court to give a preliminary ruling determining the components of the matrimonial property.

On 3 April 1997 the court held a hearing which was adjourned until 8 April 1997.

On 7 April 1997 the ex-husband’s lawyer objected to giving the preliminary ruling.

At the hearing held on 8 April 1997 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s request to join the present case to the case concerning a claim for annulment of contract.

On 22 April 1997 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for the court decision of 8 April 1997 to be served on her. On 27 May 1997 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court upheld this decision.

In the meantime, on 6 May 1997, the trial court had requested the TC company to prepare an opinion.

On 23 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the District Court. The Regional Court dismissed her challenge on 22 July 1997.

On 18 August and 8 October 1997 respectively the trial court urged the TC company to prepare the opinion.

On 18 June and 23 October 1998 the court held hearings.

On 6 November 1998 the District Court gave a preliminary ruling (postanowienie wstepne) , which determined an inventory of matrimonial property. The applicant requested the court to supplement its ruling of 6 November 1998.

The next hearing was held on 10 December 1998. The court dismissed the applicant’s request to supplement the preliminary ruling.

On 24 and 30 December 1998 respectively the ex-husband and the applicant appealed against the ruling of 6 November 1998.

On 13 January 1999 the Stalowa Wola District Court exempted the applicant from court fees due for lodging an appeal.

The appeal hearing took place on 18 February 1999. On 4 March 1999 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court upheld the decision of 6 November 1998.

On 19 May 1999 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for the minutes of the appeal hearing to be rectified.

On 31 May 1999 the Regional Court rejected her request for an interim order to be issued and dismissed her appeal against the decision of 19 May 1999.

On 16 June 1999 the Regional Court declared her cassation appeal inadmissible as being lodged out of time. She appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ).

On 20 October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 16 June 1999, declaring the applicant’s cassation appeal inadmissible as being lodged out of time. On 17 December 1999 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings terminated by the decision of 20 October 1999. On 19 June 2000 the Regional Court rejected her request.

In the meantime, on 20 May 1999, the defendant had filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court of 4 March 1999. On 1 February 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

In the meantime, on 26 January 2000, the applicant had filed a cassation appeal against the decision of 19 June 2000. On 5 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

On 25 April 2001 the applicant requested the trial court to give a partial judgment ( wyrok czesciowy ) in the case. On 10 May 2001 the court dismissed her request. The applicant appealed. On 30 May 2001 the Stalowa Wola District Court rejected her appeal as being inadmissible for procedural reasons. On 16 August 2001 the Rzeszow Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 May 2001.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending (as of 21 September 2002).

2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for annulment of contracts

On 15 November 1993 the applicant requested the Stalowa Wola District Court to declare a contract concluded by her ex-husband null and void. She submitted that her ex-husband had disposed of their matrimonial property without obtaining her consent.

The District Court held hearings on 23 February and 16 March 1994.

On 16 March 1994 the court stayed the proceedings because it considered that the determination of the claim depended on the outcome of the proceedings concerning the property adjustment order (see above 1). The applicant appealed but apparently failed to observe the prescribed time-limit. On 27 April 1994 the District Court held a hearing and granted her retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 16 March 1994.

On 19 August 1994 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed the decision to stay the proceedings.

On 6 September 1994 the District Court decided to join these two cases but, during the hearing held on 14 October 1994, it reversed its previous decision and decided to deal with them separately.

Two years later, on 23 August 1996, the trial court fixed the next hearing for 26 September 1996.

The hearing scheduled for 26 September 1996 was cancelled as the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge.

On 27 September 1996 the District Court rejected the applicant’s challenge. This decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 14 November 1996.

In the meantime, on 28 August 1996 the applicant had modified her claim and requested the court to declare several other contracts concluded by her ex-husband null and void.

On 12 December 1996 the District Court dismissed her modified claim because the applicant had not specified its value.

On 7 February 1997 the court dismissed her appeal because she had not complied with the formal requirements for lodging such appeals. The applicant appealed. On 17 February 1997 the Court requested her to specify the value of her appeal.

On 7 March 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for costs of the proceedings to be fixed provisionally and her further request for an interim order. The applicant appealed.

On 21 March 1997 the District Court refused to give reasons in writing for its decision of 7 March 1997. The applicant appealed. On 10 July 1997 the Regional Court upheld this decision.

In the meantime, on 23 June 1997, the applicant had challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Stalowa Wola District Court. On 25 July 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge considering that it was ill-founded. On 28 July 1997 the applicant requested the Court to supplement the decision of 10 July 1997. On 5 August 1997 the Court dismissed that request.

The next hearing was held on 4 November 1997.

Subsequently, the case-file was transferred to the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court in order to examine the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of 7 February and 7 March 1997.

On 28 January 1998 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 March 1997 but upheld the decision to dismiss the applicant’s modified claim.

On 25 February 1998 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 Tarnobrzeg Regional Court. On 13 March 1998 the applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected as being inadmissible. The applicant appealed.

On 7 April 1998 the District Court exempted the applicant from court fees due for lodging an appeal. The Regional Court dismissed her appeal on 19 June 1998.

On 22 September 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 2 October 1998 it ordered that some of the applicant’s claims be dealt with by the District Court. On 30 October 1998 the Regional Court exempted the applicant from court fees due for lodging an appeal and rejected her request for the minutes of the hearing of 22 September 1998 to be rectified.

On 18 December 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 2 October 1998 and remitted the case to the Regional Court.

On 5 March 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to specify all participants in the proceedings and adjourned the hearing. The applicant appealed against the decision to adjourn the hearing.

On 7 April 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 24 May 1999 the Regional Court rejected her appeal against this decision because she had not complied with certain formal requirements. The Rzeszów Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 25 June 1999.

In the meantime, on 19 April 1999 the Regional Court had rejected her request for an interim order and for the minutes of the hearing of 7 April 1999 to be rectified. On 4 May 1999 the Regional Court dismissed her appeal against this decision. These proceedings were terminated on 25 June 1999.

On 21 December 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Rzeszów Court of Appeal of 25 June 1999, finding that the applicant had not complied with formal requirements for lodging her appeal.

Later, on an unspecified date, the applicant requested the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings. On 24 March 2000 the Supreme Court referred the case to the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court since the Regional Court was competent to deal with the applicant’s request.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the property adjustment order .

2. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings concerning her claim for annulment of contracts exceeded a “reasonable time”.

THE LAW

1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings concerning the property adjustment order, which began on 21 December 1993 and are still pending. The proceedings have therefore already lasted [ 8 years and 9 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.

2. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings concerning her claim for annulment of contracts exceeded a “reasonable time”. The proceedings began on 15 November 1993 and ended on 7 April 1999 with the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court. They therefore lasted 5 years and 5 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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President