FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 51635/99 by Istvan TATRAI and Others against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 19 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs E. Palm , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , judges ,

and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 4 October 1999 and registered on 6 October 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS:

The applicant are:

- Anna Jagusiak-Tátrai , a Polish citizen, born in 1957 and resident in Warsaw,

- her husband - István Tátrai , a Hungarian citizen, born in 1952 and  resident in Warsaw,

- Krystyna Jagusiak , a Polish citizen, born in 1930 and resident in Warsaw. She is the mother of the first applicant.

The applicants are co-owners of a property in Warsaw. A fourth party (H.J.) also makes up the co-ownership of the property.

1. The civil proceedings

In 1994 the first applicant was evicted from her room in a house by H.J., who, together with the first, second and third applicants, co-owned the house.

On 31 March 1995 the first and second applicants lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court claiming restitution of de facto possession of the room.

On 12 March 1997 the first hearing was held before the Warsaw District Court. On 15 May 1997 an on-site inspection was carried out. The applicants failed to attend as they had not been informed of the inspection.

On 6 November 1997 the court ordered the expert appointed by H.J. to make a report. The applicants objected to the appointment of this particular expert and requested to have the report prepared by a police specialist. Notwithstanding the applicants objections, the expert report was submitted to the court on 25 January 1998.

On 9 March 1998 the applicants expressed reservations about the expert’s impartiality and requested that the case be transferred to the public prosecutor’s office with a view to the filing of charges against the expert who, in their view, was biased. They also requested that the civil case be stayed pending clarification of the expert’s position.

The expert failed to attend the hearings held on 2 September 1998, 9 December 1998, 17 March 1999 and 25 June 1999.

On 25 January 1999 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicants to pay the fee for the expert report submitted in January 1998.

On 1 February 1999 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Court against this decision. By a decision of 1 June 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court reduced the amount to be paid for the expert’s fee.

On 28 July 1999 the Warsaw District Court, at the defendant’s request, authorised the lifting of the security measures which it had ordered in respect of the disputed room. On 23 September 1999 the applicants lodged an appeal against this decision. By a decision of 12 October 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal.

The case remains pending.

2. The criminal proceedings

On 17 November 1995 the applicants lodged a complaint with the District Prosecutor’s Office about the verbal abuse and threats made against them by the defendant in the civil proceedings, H.J.

On 20 March 1996 the prosecuting authorities ordered that the opening of a criminal investigation against the defendant. On 26 April 2000 the Warsaw District Court discontinued these proceedings. The applicants appealed. On 31 October 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the contested decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings, which have lasted since 1995. They further complain that the civil proceedings are unfair and that their request to have the expert replaced was refused.

They complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal investigations which were instituted against the owner of the property, who is also a defendant in the civil proceedings, lasted too long.

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention that as a result of the protracted proceedings they are deprived of the use of their own property. The applicants also invoke Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings, which have been lasted since 1995.

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

2. The applicants further complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the civil proceedings are unfair in that their request to have the expert replaced was refused.

The Court finds that this complaint is premature as the proceedings are still pending. The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention.

3. The applicants also complain under Article 6 that the criminal investigations which were instituted against the owner of the property, who is also a defendant in the civil proceedings, lasted too long.

The Court notes that the applicants requested the public prosecutor to institute criminal investigations against the defendant in the civil proceedings on charges of verbal abuse and uttering threats against them. An investigation was subsequently opened. However, these proceedings did not involve either the determination of the applicants’ civil rights and obligations nor the determination of criminal charges against them. Consequently, Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to these proceedings.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4.

4. The applicants further complain that the delay in determining their civil dispute has meant that they are unable to use part of their property. They maintain that there has accordingly been an unjustified interference with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention.

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

5. The applicants further complain that they are victims of discrimination, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court finds that this complaint is not substantiated on the facts, either with respect to the enjoyment of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 or under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning the length of proceedings and the resultant interference with their property rights;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas bratza Registrar President