FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42042/98 by Wiesław PERYT 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 30 October 1997 and registered on 4 July 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the 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, Mr Wiesław Peryt, is a Polish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Marysin, 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 14 September 1992 the applicant’s former wife (“the petitioner”) filed an application for the division of their marital property with the Warsaw- Mokotów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ).

On 23 September 1992 the petitioner was exempted from payment of court fees. On 9 October 1992 the trial court appointed an expert and ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 4 December 1992 the report was submitted to the court.

On 31 December 1992 the Warsaw- Mokotów District Court ordered that 1,380,000 old zlotys (PLZ) be paid for an expert opinion. The court decided that PLZ 800,000 would be taken from the advance already paid by the petitioner, whereas the applicant was called to pay the remaining PLZ 580,000.

The first hearing was fixed for 4 February 1993 but was eventually adjourned since the applicant was not present.

On 12 February 1993 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from court fees. It considered that in view of the fact that he ran a commercial farm specialised in the production of houseplants, which had brought him the profit of PLZ 50,000,000 in the autumn of 1992, the costs would not affect his livelihood.

The next hearing was held on 16 March 1993. The court heard evidence from two witnesses. It dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from payment of court fees.

On 18 March 1993 the applicant made another application for an exemption from court fees. The trial court recognised his request as an appeal against the decision of 16 March 1993.

On 22 April 1993 the court held a hearing. It heard the parties and adjourned the hearing.

B. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 15 May 1993 the applicant requested that the court include in the case file certain documents allegedly stolen by the petitioner. He submits that the request was not examined.

On 27 July the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 18 March 1993.

On 17 August 1993 the applicant requested the Warszawa-Mokotów District Court to re-open the proceedings concerning his exemption from the court fees. On 7 September 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) rejected his request on procedural grounds.

On 8 February 1994 the court held a hearing and heard the expert. It was adjourned until 15 March 1994.

At the hearing held on 15 March 1994 the applicant asked the court to punish a witness who, in his opinion, had given false testimony. He submits that the application was not examined. On the same day the court ordered that a fresh supplementary expert report be obtained. The applicant objected to this decision.

On 18 July 1994 a supplementary report was submitted to the court.

On 10 December 1994 the applicant lodged an objection against the allegedly unlawful appointment of an expert. He submits that the objection was not examined.

On 21 December 1994 the court held a hearing. On 23 December 1994 the applicant requested the court to admonish the petitioner for insulting him.

On 3 January 1995 the court delivered a partial decision. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. Subsequently, he was ordered to pay a fee therefor. He requested the exemption, but his request was on 24 March 1995 refused as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed.

On 6 June 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal.

On 6 July 1995 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 3 January 1995, as he had failed to pay the court fee. The applicant appealed.

On 5 January 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal.

On 22 March and 10 May 1996 the court held hearings.

On 5 July 1996 the court adjourned a hearing because the counsel of the petitioner was ill .

On 8 July 1996 the applicant lodged a motion in which he challenged the presiding judge. On 15 July 1996 the applicant’s motion was dismissed. Subsequently, on 7 November 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.

In the meantime, the hearing fixed for 8 August 1996 was adjourned.

On 6 January 1997 the applicant requested the court to reopen the proceedings terminated by the partial decision of 3 January 1996.

On 21 May 1997 the court held a hearing.

On 18 November 1997 the court rejected the applicant’s request to reopen the proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.

On 19 January 1998 the court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee due for lodging the appeal. On 22 April 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the court’s order of 19 January 1998.

On 27 July 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 18 November 1997.

On 26 January, 10 March, 30 March, 29 April, 10 May, 8 June and 14 June 1999 the court held hearings. On 14 June 1999 the applicant requested that the hearing be recorded on an audiocassette.

At the hearing held on 23 August 1999 the court appointed four experts and ordered expert opinions be prepared. The applicant lodged an appeal in this respect, but it was rejected on 15 November 1999. The applicant appealed. On 17 January 2000 the court rejected his appeal as he failed to pay the fee for lodging it. The applicant appealed. On 22 May 2000 the Warsaw- Mokotow District Court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee due for lodging the appeal. On 20 July 2000 the court rejected his appeal as he failed to pay the fee.

On 3 November 2000 the court ordered the applicant to determine the value of his appeal. On 14 November 2000 he complied with this order. Subsequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee for lodging an appeal. On 3 December 2000 the applicant appealed against the order to pay the fee for the appeal. On 2 February 2001 the trial court ordered the applicant to determine the value of his appeal.

On 9 March 2001 the first expert submitted his opinion to the court.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending as of 1 October 2002.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 14 September 1992 with the Warsaw- Mokotów District Court and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted over 10 years, out of which the period of 9 years and 5 months 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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President