FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 43316/98 by B. R. against Poland

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

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs 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 on 15 July 1997,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Warsaw . 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.

On 8 June 1994 the applicant was charged with having forced a witness in his divorce proceedings to withdraw her testimony. On 12 July 1994 the Warsaw District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) submitted to the Warsaw District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) a bill of indictment concerning that charge.

On 20 June 1994 the prosecutor submitted to District Court another bill of indictment against the applicant. The applicant was charged with domestic violence against his wife.

On 13 July and 13 September 1994 he requested the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer.

On 15 September 1994 the Warsaw District Court joined those two cases.

On 23 September 1994 the court appointed a lawyer for the applicant.

On 27 September, as well as on 4 and 7 October 1994, the applicant submitted several pieces of evidence to the court.

The court held hearings on 10 and 11 October 1994. On the latter date it ordered the psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 2 December 1994 the psychiatric opinion was submitted to the court.

On 2 December 1994 another hearing was held. The court summoned certain witnesses. On 1 February 1995 the court adjourned a hearing, as witness M., the examination of whom had been requested by the applicant, failed to appear. The court established that the witness resided abroad, in France or Germany. It ordered the police to find out when that witness would return to Poland.

On 8 February, as well as on 9, 20 and 29 March 1995, the applicant submitted further petitions concerning evidence.

On 24 April 1995 the police informed the court that witness M was still abroad.

On 14 September 1995 the applicant requested that a further hearing be scheduled in the case. On 19 September 1995 he informed the court that M had already returned to Poland. However, on 8 October 1995, upon the court’s order, the police again established that M was abroad.

On 8 November 1995 the court informed the applicant that the only reason why the hearings were not scheduled was witness M’s absence.

On 15 November 1995 the applicant informed the court about M’s alleged return to Poland and specified his place of residence. The police again found out that M was still abroad.

On 27 November 1995 the Warsaw District Prosecutor submitted to the court another bill of indictment in which he charged the applicant with the evasion of the payment of maintenance for his daughter.

On 11 and 12 December 1995 the applicant submitted to the court further petitions concerning evidence.

The hearing scheduled for 18 March 1996 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness. After that date the court did not schedule any hearings until 8 June 2000.

On 18 April 1996 it joined the bill of indictment of 27 November 1995 to the proceedings.

On 22 April 1996 the court informed the applicant that due to the change of the presiding judge further hearings would be scheduled only in the second half of 1996.

On 29 April 1996 the applicant requested that all his cases which had been joined be examined separately. Subsequently, he was informed that no appeal lay against the decision of 18 April 1996 and that the case had to be re-opened due to the change of the presiding judge.

On 10 and 23 May 1996 the applicant again requested that witness M be summoned to appear before the court. Subsequently, he requested also that a hearing be scheduled.

On 8 June 2000 the court ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination, at his counsel’s request.

On 27 June 2000 the applicant requested the appointment of another lawyer for him and expressed his doubts as to the impartiality of the court.

In reply to the court’s request, on 14 July 2000 the applicant specified that it was not his intention to challenge the participation of the judges in the proceedings.

On 25 August 2000 the applicant asked permission to record the course of the hearing on his tape-recorder. After the presiding judge’s refusal the applicant decided to leave the courtroom and challenged the participation in the proceedings of the presiding judge.

On 30 August 2000 the Warsaw District Court declined the applicant’s request.

On 11 September 2000 the applicant petitioned the court to quash the decisions of 25 and 30 August 2000.

On 11 October 2000 the court ordered another psychiatric examination of the applicant, considering that the two psychiatric opinions issued in the course of those proceedings were incomplete and superficial.

The applicant did not attend the examination scheduled for 2 November 2000.

On 7 March 2001 the court ordered an inquiry as to whether the applicant had undergone the examination scheduled for December 2000 and when the psychiatric opinion would be submitted. The court’s registry established that the examination was arranged for 30 May 2001. The presiding judge ordered that the applicant be brought to the psychiatric hospital by the police.

In June 2001 the psychiatric and psychological opinions were submitted to the court. The experts stated that the overall examination of the applicant’s mental health would require his observation in a psychiatric hospital.

The proceedings are still pending.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 8 June 1994 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted  8 years, 2 months and 19 days.

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.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President