FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 52168/99 by Halina MAJKRZYK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 27 August 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää ,

Mrs E. Palm , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr L. Garlicki , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the Court on 4 January 1999 and registered on 27 October 1999,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Halina Majkrzyk, is a Polish national, born in 1950 and living in Kaczyn, Poland.

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

A. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993

On 10 June 1988 the applicant filed with the Kielce District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) an application for distribution of the inheritance left by her late mother. From 19 July 1988 to 30 April 1993 the court held eleven hearings and ordered that seven expert reports be prepared.

B. Facts that took place after 30 April 1993

On 31 August and 14 October 1993 the court held hearings.

On 25 October 1993 the court heard a witness at the place of his residence.

A hearing listed for 18 November 1993 was adjourned sine die since a witness summoned by the court did not appear. On the same day the court ordered that a supplementary expert report be prepared.

On 6 May 1994 the court adjourned the hearing at the request of a lawyer of B.J., a party to the proceedings.

A hearing listed for 8 June 1994 was adjourned because of the absence of a witness summoned by the court.

On 6 July 1994 the court held a hearing and set a time-limit for the parties to submit their requests as to evidence in the case.

During the hearing held on 29 July 1994 the court ordered that a supplementary expert report be prepared by expert H.B. It adjourned the hearing sine die .

On 24 October 1994 the expert H.B. submitted the requested report to the court.

On 15 December 1994 B.J. requested the court to secure the claim.

On 13 February 1995 the court held a hearing. It set 14 days time-limit for B.J. to submit his requests as to evidence in the case and for the applicant to submit her pleadings.

A hearing listed for 27 March 1995 was adjourned until 8 May 1995 at the request of B.J.’s lawyer. Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 8 May 1995 until 22 May 1995.

At the hearing held on 22 May 1995 B.J. challenged the expert opinion and requested the court to inspect the site. The hearing was adjourned sine die .

On 29 May 1995 the court dismissed the request of B.J. to secure the claim.

On 10 November 1995 the court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to produce a court decision determining who had inherited the property of her late mother and adjourned the hearing.

The expert summoned to appear at the hearing on 26 January 1996 failed to do so. As a result, the court adjourned the hearing.

On 27 March 1996 the court held a hearing. It heard the expert and ordered inspection of the site.

The inspection of the site scheduled for 28 June 1996 was postponed because of the bad weather.

On 23 August 1996 the court inspected the site.

On 7 January 1997 the trial court ordered that supplementary experts reports be prepared.

On 17 March 1997 the applicant and four other parties to the proceedings sent a letter to the President of the Kraków Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) requesting that the proceedings be expedited. In a letter of 13 May 1997 the President informed the applicant that the President of the Kielce District Court would supervise the conduct of the proceedings. He also admitted that the proceedings had been slowed down as a result of changes to the rapporteurs .

On 8 May 1997 the expert H.B. submitted a supplementary report to the court.

On 14 July 1997 the court held a hearing. It set a two-week time-limit for the lawyer of B.J. to submit his pleadings.

A further hearing, listed for 5 September 1997, was adjourned sine die .

On 6 October 1997 the court ordered that an additional report be prepared.

On 20 October 1997 the expert T.Z. submitted a supplementary report to the court.

The next hearing, listed for 22 November 1997, was adjourned at the request of B.J as he was ill.

On 22 December 1997 the court held a hearing.

The hearing scheduled for 4 February 1998 was adjourned at the request of B.J.’s lawyer.

On 18 February 1998 the court held a hearing. It ordered that a supplementary expert report be prepared.

On 17 March 1998 a supplementary report was submitted to the court.

A further hearing, listed for 23 March 1998, was adjourned sine die .

On 1 June 1998 the court ordered that a fresh supplementary expert report be prepared within one month.

On 10 July 1998 the court obtained a supplementary expert report.

On 5 August 1998 the applicant and other parties to the proceedings challenged the expert report.

On 30 September 1998 the applicant and four other parties to the proceedings complained to the President of the Kielce District Court about the delay in the proceedings.

On 6 November 1998 the court served the expert report on the parties and ordered that they submit their observations thereon within 14 days.

On 18 November 1998 the applicant and other parties to the proceedings challenged the expert opinion and accused B.J. of prolonging the proceedings.

The hearing held on 23 March 1999 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer due to the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement.

The court held a further hearing on 30 April 1999. The applicant’s lawyer informed the court that reaching a friendly settlement was impossible due to the conduct of B.J. The hearing was adjourned at the request of B.J.’s lawyer.

The next hearing was held on 14 May 1999. The court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the final decision would be delivered on 24 May 1999. It later resumed the examination of the case and listed a hearing for 8 September 1999.

On 22 September 1999 the District Court gave a decision ( postanowienie ). On 13 December 1999 B.J. appealed against the first-instance decision to the Kielce Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ).

On 27 April 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing which was subsequently adjourned sine die .

On 15 May 2000 the court dismissed B.J.’s request for exemption from court fees.

On 27 June 2000 the court ordered that three fresh expert reports be prepared within one month. The expert reports were submitted to the court on 20 July and 30 August 2000 respectively.

On 18 October 2000 the court held a hearing and ordered the parties to submit their observations on the experts’ reports within 14 days. It adjourned the hearing sine die at the joint request of B.J. and his lawyer.

On 1 December 2000 the court held the hearing and heard the experts. It closed the examination of the case and announced that the decision would be delivered on 15 December 2000. On the same day the court resumed the examination of the case following the requests of B.J. and his lawyer and adjourned the hearing sine die .

The next hearing listed for 25 January 2001 was adjourned at the request of B.J.’s lawyer as B.J. was ill.

On 12 April 2001 the court held a hearing and gave a decision ( postanowienie ).

On 23 June 2001 B.J. lodged a cassation appeal with the Kielce Regional Court.

On 12 July 2001 the court rejected the cassation appeal. On 28 August 2001 B.J. appealed.

It appears that on an unspecified date in 2001 the court dismissed B.J.’s appeal and the decision became final.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 10 June 1988 before the Kielce District Court and ended on an unspecified date in 2001. They therefore lasted approximately 13 years, out of which the period of about 9 years falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis .

According to the applicants, 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 applicants’ 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