FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42615/98 by Jan POTAÅš against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 1 October 2002 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 Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 February 1998 and registered on 6 August 1998,

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 30 November 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 is a Polish national, born in 1956 and living in Katowice , 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

On 30 November 1992 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) an appeal against a decision of the Social Security Board ( Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) refusing him a right to a disability pension for an occupational injury sustained at a coal mine.

On 21 January 1993 the court ordered the applicant to undergo a medical examination. However, he did not keep his appointment for the examination on the date fixed. The applicant submits that he did not appear before the medical experts because he received the relevant notification too late.

On 15 February 1993 the court again ordered an examination. The expert report was submitted to the court on 22 April 1993.

B. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 13 July 1993 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal as being unsubstantiated.

On 2 September 1993 the applicant appealed against that judgment .

On 24 March 1994 the Katowice Court of Appeal ( SÄ…d Apelacyjny ) held a hearing and gave judgment . It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 16 May 1994 the Katowice Regional Court requested the Katowice Neurological Clinic to provide information on the applicant’s medical records. On 31 August 1994 the court reiterated its request, and on 13 September 1994 the Neurological Clinic complied with the court’s request.

On 4 October 1994 the Katowice Regional Court decided to obtain a further expert report. The report was submitted to the court on 13 October 1994. On 16 November 1994 the applicant challenged the contents of the report.

On 5 December 1994 the court held a hearing and ordered a new medical examination of the applicant. The expert report was submitted to the court on 16 February 1995.

On 27 February 1995 the court decided to obtain fresh expert evidence. An expert report was submitted to the court on 13 April 1995.

On 26 June 1995 the applicant challenged the report.

On 4 July 1995 the court decided to obtain the expert’s comments on the applicant’s observations. The expert report was submitted to the court on 9 October 1995.

On 14 February 1996 the court gave judgment . It granted the applicant the right to a disability pension.

On 14 March 1996 the Social Security Board appealed.

On 3 April 1996 the applicant submitted his reply to the appeal.

On 10 September 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal held a hearing and decided to obtain a further expert report. On 2 February 1997 the court sent a reminder to the expert in order to speed up his work. On 7 March 1997 the expert report was submitted to the court.

On 25 September 1997 the appellate court gave judgment and allowed the appeal of the Social Security Board.

Subsequently, the applicant requested the Katowice Court of Appeal to appoint a legal aid lawyer for him for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal against the judgment of 25 September 1997. On 16 December 1997 the court refused the applicant’s request, finding that he had not proved to its satisfaction that he could not bear the costs of legal assistance. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Katowice Court of Appeal.

On 12 January 1998 the appellate court rejected the applicant’s appeal as not provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Subsequently, on two occasions (respectively on 8 December 1997 and 4 May 1999) the applicant requested the Katowice Court of Appeal to re ‑ open the proceedings, but to no avail.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court, assessing the reasonableness of the length of the time in question, will have regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95,  § 60, 15 October 1999, unreported).

The Court observes that the period to be considered under Article 6 § 1 began on 30 November 1992, when the applicant filed his claim with the Katowice Regional Court and ended on 25 September 1997, when the Katowice Court of Appeal gave judgment. They therefore lasted 4 years and 10 months, out of which the period of 4 years and 5 months falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis and involved examination in four instances.

In order to determine the reasonableness of the length of time in question the Court will have regard to the state of the case on 1 May 1993 (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland cited above, § 59).

The hearing started in January 1993, that is to say, without any substantial delay on the part of the authorities. During the period under consideration the case was heard twice at first instance and twice on appeal. The hearings were held at reasonable intervals and adjourned only when it was necessary to obtain evidence.

Furthermore, the Court notes that from 5 December 1994 to 14 February 1996 no hearing took place. However, during that period the Katowice Regional Court did not remain passive. It obtained extensive medical evidence on the applicant’s state of health. What is more, the court made every effort to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence followed its proper course.

With respect to the conduct of the applicant, the Court notes that although his conduct cannot be regarded as hindering the process of the proceedings, he contributed to the length of the trial. In particular, it must be noted that in November 1994 and June 1995 he challenged the experts’ reports. It necessitated obtaining supplementary medical opinions. The Court reiterates that while the applicant is entitled to exercise his procedural rights, he must bear the consequences when it leads to delays (see, mutatis mutandis , the Buchholz v. Germany judgment of 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42, pp. 21-22, § 63).

The Court considers that the case involved a degree of complexity on account of the nature of the applicant’s claim. The court had had to obtain several expert reports in order to resolve the issue of whether there was a causal link between the accident and the deterioration of the applicant’s health.

Assessing the circumstances of the case as a whole and having regard to the total length of the proceedings and, more particularly, to the fact that the domestic authorities conducted the case with the diligence required under Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that it cannot be said that the applicant’s right to a “hearing within a reasonable time” was violated.

It follows that the remainder of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-passos Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President