FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 52468/99 by Tadeusz SIENKIEWICZ against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 September 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mrs E. Palm , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Tadeusz Sienkiewicz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Szczecin , Poland. He is not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government are represented by Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

In 1989 the applicant, who worked as head of a department in a state-owned enterprise dealing with conservation of old buildings, was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed with the Szczecin District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) an action in which he requested that his dismissal be declared null and void, as well as that he be reinstated in his former post.

On 16 February 1990 the court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed, but on 22 June 1990 the Szczecin Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) dismissed his appeal.

On 7 June 1993 the Ombudsman lodged an extraordinary appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.

On 14 July 1993 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

In his pleadings of 28 March 1994 the applicant withdrew his claim for reinstatement in his former post and raised a compensation claim.

The District Court held hearings on 9 May and 28 November 1994, as well as on 2 and 25 January 1995.

On 25 January 1995 it dismissed the action again.

On 30 June 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment.

On 2 August 1996 the Ombudsman lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment.

On 13 December 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 23 April 1997 the Szczecin District Court stayed the proceedings, because of the fact that insolvency proceedings concerning the defendant were pending. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 30 June 1997 it was dismissed by the Szczecin Regional Court.

On 21 September 1998 the District Court resumed the proceedings.

On 22 October 1998 it held a hearing.

On 26 October 1998 the court awarded the applicant a partial compensation. The applicant appealed against that judgment.

On 17 February 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing.

On 24 February 1999 it quashed the judgment of 26 October 1998 and remitted the case for re-examination.

The District Court held hearings on 23 July, as well as on 15 and 29 November 1999.

On 29 November 1999 it gave a judgment, in which it awarded the applicant compensation. The applicant appealed.

The Szczecin Regional Court held hearings on 10 and 31 May 2000.

On 31 May 2000 it amended the judgment under appeal in that it increased the amount of the compensation.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began in 1989 and ended on 31 May 2000. They therefore lasted over 10 years and 5 months, out of which the period of 7 years and 1 month falls within the Court’s competence ratione temporis , Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993.

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 by a majority

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

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President