FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 60225/00 by Mária JABLONSKÁ against Poland

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

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs E. Palm , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 April 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant,  Mária Jablonská, is a Slovak national of Polish origin. She was born in 1921 in Warsaw and lives in Senec, Slovakia .

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

A. Background.

Before the Second World War the applicant’s parents had title to a house in Warsaw. By virtue of an edict of 26 October 1945, all land in Warsaw was nationalised and they were allocated a flat in Warsaw. Later, they requested the administrative authorities to grant them a right of perpetual lease ( prawo wieczystej dzierżawy ) of their house. On 10 July 1951 the Warsaw National Council ( Rada Narodowa ) refused their request. After the death of the applicant’s parents, she, being the sole heir to the property, sought restitution of, or compensation for, loss of property.

By a notarial deed of 4 December 1989 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office ( Urząd Dzielnicowy ) granted a married couple, Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. a right of perpetual use ( prawo użytkowania wieczystego ) of the estate that had once belonged to the applicant’s parents. Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. claimed to be legal successors of the applicant’s parents under a contract transferring title to the estate, which had been allegedly concluded in 1967.

On 17 June 1991 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) asked the State Notary Office in Warsaw ( Państwowe Biuro Notarialne ) to enter a caution ( zastrzeżenie ) in the land register with the effect that no transfer of the title to the said estate be allowed.

On 17 February 1992 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Wojewódzki ) filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) against Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. and the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office, seeking to have the notarial deed of 4 December 1989 declared null and void.

On 30 March 1992 Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. sold the property to a certain Ms J.P.

On 3 April 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court against Mr S. and Mrs G.-S., seeking the annulment of the notarial deed of 4 December 1989.

On 23 June 1992 the court joined the action of the Regional Prosecutor to the action brought by the applicant. On 7 May 1997 the proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 7 May 1997 declaring the notarial deed of 4 December 1989 null and void.

1. Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 5 November 1992 the applicant sued Ms J.P., Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. before the Warsaw Regional Court. She requested that the notarial deed of 30 March 1992 concluded between Ms J.P. and two other defendants be declared null and void.

On 13 November 1992 the court exempted the applicant from court fees.

On 18 November 1992 the court secured the applicant’s claim and scheduled the first hearing for 18 January 1993.

2. Facts after 1 May 1993

On 13 May 1993 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the proceedings brought against Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. (described above).

On 19 September 1997 the applicant asked the trial court to resume the proceedings. They were resumed on 30 September 1997. A hearing listed for 5 February 1998 was, however, adjourned as the defendants were not present. A further hearing, listed for 2 June 1998, was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer. On the same day the court asked the Warsaw District Court to transmit to it a file of a criminal case pending in that court and ordered the defendants to submit additional documents.

On 30 July 1998 the applicant’s counsel asked the trial court not to fix any hearings from 3 to 12 August 1998 or from 7 to 19 September 1998 because he would be on holiday on those dates.

On 25 November 1998 the court asked the Warsaw District Court to provide it with an extract from the mortgage register for the property in question.

A hearing listed for 23 June 1999 was adjourned due to the defendant’s absence. A hearing listed for 3 November 1999 was adjourned because the judge rapporteur was ill. A hearing listed for 27 March 2000 was cancelled at the defendants’ request.

The court listed a further hearing for 12 July 2000.

On 12 July 2000 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the defendants. On 26 July 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment . It declared the notarial deed of 30 March 1992 null and void. The defendants appealed.

On 10 July 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal held a hearing. On 24 July 2001 the court gave judgment and amended the first-instance judgment .

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 5 November 1992 in the Warsaw Regional Court and ended on 24 July 2001. They therefore lasted 8 years, 8 months, 19 days, out of which the period of 8 years, 2 months, 23 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis .

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 relevant 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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President