FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 55106/00 by Janina GÓRKA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 29 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , 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 with the Court on 1 February 1999 and registered on 23 February 2000,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Janina Górka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1915 and lives in Kraków, Poland. She is represented before the Court by Mr Zbigniew Sobiech, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 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.

a. Facts prior to 1 May 1993.

In 1985 the applicant’s brother, R.G., died. On 10 September 1986 his widow, Z.S.-G., (hereinafter “the petitioner”) filed with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an application for distribution of the estate left by the deceased. The applicant and C.H., her niece, were the participants in the proceedings. They were represented by the same lawyer.

Subsequently, certain E.D. and A.D. acquired a part of the petitioner’s share in the estate. On 24 November 1987 they joined the proceedings. After the death of A.D. in 1990, E.D. was declared her only heir. Prior to 11 June 1991 the court held seven hearings (of which two were adjourned) and obtained four expert reports.

On 11 June 1991 the District Court gave a partial decision ( postanowienie częściowe ). The applicant and C.H. appealed. On 14 April 1992 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.

Later, the District Court held three hearings. On 22 January 1993 the court ordered an expert report. On 23 April 1993 the expert submitted his report to the court.

b. Facts after 30 April 1993.

On 4 May 1993 the court stayed the proceedings because the petitioner had died. On 21 May 1993 E.D. appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings.

It appears that in accordance with a court decision of 27 September 1993 a certain D.R. inherited the estate of the late petitioner. On 8 December 1993 E.D. requested that the court resume the proceedings. On 2 March 1994 the court summoned D.R. to join the proceedings.

On 29 March 1994 the court adjourned a hearing. At the hearing held on 18 April 1994 the court heard an expert and ordered him to prepare a supplementary report. On 18 May 1994 another supplementary expert report was submitted to the court. On 25 May 1994 the court adjourned a hearing due to the illness of a judge rapporteur. On 20 June 1994 the court held a hearing. It heard evidence from an expert.

On 6 August and 28 November 1994 the court ordered additional expert evidence. On 3 April 1995 an expert report was submitted to the court. On 20 June 1995 the court held a hearing. The parties refused to settle the case. The court ordered that A.P., an expert, prepare a report. The expert submitted his report on 5 June 1996.

On 1 August 1996 the court adjourned a hearing because the parties had not been properly summoned to the hearing. The court put a question to C.H. whether she would change her lawyer, who, in view of the changes in domestic legislation, was not qualified to represent her. On 18 November 1996 the court adjourned a hearing.

On 20 March 1997 the court held a hearing. E.D. challenged the power of attorney of the applicant’s lawyer. The court adjourned the hearing and decided to put the same question again to C.H.

A hearing listed for 21 November 1997 was adjourned. The court ordered the applicant’s lawyer to submit C.H.’s current address. It appears that subsequently the court stayed the proceedings. On 10 December 1997 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the court his power of attorney given by the applicant. On 20 February 1998 the court appointed the applicant a guardian ad litem for C.H.

On 23 July 1998 the court resumed the proceedings and adjourned a hearing listed for that date because some of the parties had not been properly summoned to the hearing. On 29 September 1998 the court exempted the applicant from court fees. On 5 November 1998 the court held a hearing and heard the parties.

On 18 November 1998 the District Court gave a partial decision, determining the assets which constituted the joint matrimonial property of the spouses and those which constituted separate property of the applicant’s brother.

On 29 December 1998 the court ordered to obtain five additional expert reports. On 31 May and 10 July 1999 two expert reports were submitted to the court. On 30 July 1999 the court refused the applicant’s challenge to S.B., one of the experts. On 3 February 2000 two further expert reports were submitted to the court.

On 9 February 2000 the court informed the applicant that her lawyer was no longer entitled to represent her in the proceedings. On 6 March 2000 the applicant contested the opinion of the court and informed the court that she approved of the actions of her lawyer.

On 11 July 2000 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from five experts. A hearing listed for 18 October 2000 was adjourned due to the illness of a judge rapporteur.

The court held hearings on 25 January, 27 February and 28 March 2001. On 3 April 2001 the applicant requested an additional expert report to be prepared. On 14 May 2001 the court held a hearing.

On 28 May 2001 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision. On 26 June 2001 E.D., a participant to the proceedings, lodged an appeal against the first-instance decision. On 28 June 2001 the applicant filed her appeal. On 6 August 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal for non-compliance with the formal requirements.

It appears that the proceedings are pending following the appeal of E.D.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 10 September 1986 with the Warsaw District Court and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted about fifteen years and four months, out of which the period of eight years and nearly nine months 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 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 B ratza Registrar President