FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 73003/01 by Genowefa GRELA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 30 April 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs E. Palm , Mr J. Makarczyk ,

Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 1999 and registered on 22 August 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Genowefa Grela, is a Polish national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Zamość.

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

A. Facts prior to 1 May 1993

The applicant’s father and mother died in 1982 and 1983 respectively. On 2 March 1984 the Zamość District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) declared that the applicant and her three brothers were to inherit their estate. On 17 September 1985 the applicant filed an application for distribution of the estate with the Zamość District Court .

From 30 October 1985 to 27 June 1991 the court held at least twenty-two hearings. It also obtained five expert reports.

B. Facts after 30 April 1993

On 28 September 1993 the court held a hearing during which it heard evidence from the applicant and one of her brothers.

The court held a further hearing on 25 October 1993. On 8 November 1993 the court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the final decision would be delivered on 22 November 1993. It later resumed the examination of the case and listed a hearing for 24 January 1994.

At that hearing, the court again heard evidence from the applicant and one of her brothers. In April 1994 the applicant personally went to the court’s registry and asked the President of the Zamość District Court to fix a date for a hearing as soon as possible; she also complained about the slow progress in the proceedings.

On 16 May 1994 the court held a hearing, heard five witnesses and ordered an expert to prepare a report. On 20 June 1994 the expert submitted his report to the court.

On 12 December 1994 and 16 January 1995 the court held hearings.

In the course of the proceedings several judge rapporteurs dealt with the case.

In February 1995 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice asking that the proceedings be expedited.

In a letter of 30 March 1995 the President of the Zamość Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) informed the applicant that he would personally 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 22 January 1996 the court obtained an expert report. On 17 April 1996 the court held a hearing. Two further expert reports were submitted to the court on 25 May 1995 and 16 June 1996, respectively.

The court held hearings on 26 January and 9, 16 and 23 February 1999.

On 4 February, 3 March and 17 March 2000 the court held hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses. On 4 April 2000 the court informed the parties that the final decision would be delivered on 18 April 2000.

On 18 April 2000 the court decided that it would not deliver the final decision and resumed the proceedings. On the same date the court asked the applicant to submit an extract from the land register confirming that her late parents had owned a certain plot of land.

On 4 May 2000 the applicant made submissions to the court. She maintained that she was not able to produce the documents required by the court because her parents did not have title to that property.

On 15 May 2000 the court stayed the proceedings. It held that the applicant had failed to comply with the order of 18 April 2000. Subsequently, the applicant asked the court on several occasions to resume the proceedings.

On 23 January 2002 the Zamość Regional Court resumed the proceedings.

It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Zamość District Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.

2. She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the protracted length of the proceedings is in breach of that provision.

3. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 14 that the conduct of the proceedings amounted to discrimination against her.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.

The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the protracted length of the proceedings is in breach of that provision.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 14 of the Convention about a violation of her property rights due to the length of the proceedings.

The Court finds that this complaint is not substantiated on the facts, either with respect to the enjoyment of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 or under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

It follows that this complaint is therefore 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

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the length of the civil proceedings in her case exceeded a “reasonable time” and resulted in an interference with her property rights;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President