THIRD SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 52518/99 by Zygmunt KORAL against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of [Note1]

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr I. Cabral Barreto ,

Mr J. Makarczyk , Mr P. Kūris , Mr B. Zupančič , Mr J. Hedigan , Mrs M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the Court on 11 May 1999 and registered on 9 November 1999,

Having regard to the partial decision of 12 December 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, Zygmunt Koral, is a Polish national, who was born in 1918 and lives in Kraków, Poland. 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 28 May 1971 the Chrzanów District Court ( Sąd Powiatowy ) gave a decision ( postanowienie ) declaring that, under the will of M.H. (the applicant’s mother-in-law), her estate be inherited by her three daughters Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.K. (the applicant’s wife) and by her granddaughter (M.S.).

On 30 June 1977 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) declared that the applicant had inherited the estate of his late wife.

1 Facts prior to 1 May 1993.

On 15 October 1977 Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.S. (“the petitioners”) filed with the Kraków-Krowodrza District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an application for distribution of the estate of M.H. The estate consisted of three plots of land and a house and had so far been held in individual shares. The applicant was a party to these proceedings as a successor to his wife ( M.H.’s daughter).

On 30 June 1978 the District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. In September 1978 the expert submitted his report to the court. On 30 May 1979 the court gave a decision ( postanowienie ) distributing the estate. On 16 November 1979, on the applicant’s appeal, the Kraków Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) partly amended the first-instance decision.

On 3 October 1980, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) set aside the decision of the Regional Court and the decision of the District Court, and remitted the case to the court of first instance.

On 29 January 1985 the District Court gave a decision. On 11 September 1985 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. On 16 June 1986 the District Court gave yet another decision. On 18 September 1987 the Regional Court set aside the decision of the first-instance court.

On 26 October 1988 the District Court gave a decision and granted the ownership of the property to S.Z. (the grandson of the applicant’s mother-in-law). The court ordered S.Z. to pay off the applicant’s share in the estate and ordered also that all the petitioners reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant for the maintenance of the property in question. Lastly, the court ordered that the applicant surrender the property into S.Z.’s possession within two months.

On 3 February 1989 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision.

On 14 September 1989, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court partly quashed the decisions of the first- and the second-instance courts, and remitted the case to the District Court, ordering that court to determine the amount of payments to be made to the heirs, including the applicant. The Supreme Court found that the District Court had erroneously assessed the value of the estate (without reference to the market value of the property) which in turn had had an effect on the amount of the payments. On 14 September 1989 the decision of the District Court of 26 October 1988 in respect of the manner in which the estate was distributed became final. The subsequent proceedings concerned solely the amount of payments for the respective shares in the estate.

On an unspecified date other petitioners joined the proceedings.

Prior to 1 May 1993 there were 38 hearings held in the case before the District Court, the Regional Court and the Supreme Court. During that period the courts dealing with the case heard evidence from at least fifteen witnesses and five experts. There were eleven expert reports submitted to the courts and five inspections of the site took place. On five occasions the applicant challenged the judges dealing with the case which resulted in a delay of approximately ten months. The proceedings were stayed on two occasions (on 23 May 1980 by the Supreme Court and on 13 July 1982 by the District Court) which resulted in a delay of approximately eleven months.

2. Facts after 30 April 1993.

On 1 July 1993 the District Court ordered an additional report from expert R.L. On 15 September 1993 the applicant challenged that expert and requested the court to obtain an additional report from expert A.S.

On 11 October 1993 expert R.L. submitted his additional report to the District Court. The delay in preparation of that report resulted from difficulties in arranging the inspection of the site caused by the parties. On 6 November 1993 the applicant again requested the court to obtain a report from another expert.

On 10 November 1993 the applicant challenged the judge dealing with the case. On 18 November 1993 the District Court dismissed that challenge as unfounded.

On 30 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to issue an interim order and to enter a warning in the land register about the proceedings related to the estate.

On 1 December 1993 the petitioners submitted their observations on the expert report. On 10 January 1994 the applicant submitted his observations thereon. He also requested the court to obtain a report from another expert. On 11 January 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court.

On 17 January 1994 the District Court held a hearing. It dismissed the applicant’s request of 30 November 1993. On 18 February 1994 the applicant requested the court to call a witness and submitted his further observations on the expert report.

On 10 March 1994 expert R.L. submitted to the court yet another additional report. On 21 April 1994 the petitioners submitted their observations on that report. In principle, they agreed with its conclusions but requested that a further supplementary report be prepared.

On 4 July 1994 the applicant requested the court to issue an interim order. The District Court fixed a hearing for 15 July 1994. It was adjourned to 9 September 1994 at the petitioners’ request. On 22 August 1994 the applicant challenged the judge dealing with the case.

On 9 September 1994 the court held a hearing and heard the expert. On 21 September 1994 the court dismissed the applicant’s request of 4 July 1994. On 30 September 1994 the expert submitted his reply to the applicant’s observations on his report.

On 19 October 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision of 21 September 1994. On 5 December 1994 the applicant rectified procedural defects in his appeal and paid the fee due to lodging the appeal. On 22 December 1994 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 2 January 1995 the case file was received in the District Court.

On 28 April 1995 the applicant filed with the court his reply to the submissions of the expert of 30 September 1994. On 5 May 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence from two witnesses and the expert R.L.

On 16 August 1995 the applicant requested the court to obtain a report from another expert. On 18 September 1995 the applicant requested the court to issue an interim order to secure his claims in the proceedings. On 22 September 1995 the court held a hearing. It refused the applicant’s request for an interim order to be issued and invited the participants to settle the case. On the same date, on the joint request of the participants, the court stayed the proceedings.

On 22 November 1995 the applicant requested the court that the proceedings be resumed as he disagreed with the amount of payment proposed to him by other petitioners (within the framework of the settlement). On 6 December 1995 the court refused his request.

On 17 January 1996 the applicant again requested the court to resume the proceedings. On 23 January 1996 the court resumed them. On 16 February 1996 the court held a hearing. It heard evidence from two witnesses and imposed a fine on another witness who did not appear at the hearing. A hearing fixed for 22 March 1996 was adjourned at the petitioners’ request.

At the hearing held on 23 April 1996 the court heard evidence from one witness. The court gave all petitioners a time-limit of fourteen days for submission of their proposals concerning re-evaluation of the expert report.

On 6 May 1996 the applicant requested the court to obtain a report from another expert. The court granted that request and attempted to find an expert. Two experts refused to prepare a report. On some later unspecified date expert J.W. agreed to prepare a report in the case. On 11 September 1996 that expert requested the court to grant him an advance payment for preparation of the report. The court granted the expert’s request and decided that the applicant was to pay the advance to the expert.

On 11 February 1997 expert J.W. submitted his report to the court. On 14 April 1997 the petitioners contested the expert report.

On 29 April 1997 the court ordered expert J.W. to prepare a supplementary report, taking into account the market value of the estate. On 19 May 1997 the expert replied that he was not able to do so. On the same day the court ordered yet another expert, W.O., to prepare a report in order to determine the market value of the estate (taking as the starting point 26 October 1988, the date on which the court had decided to grant the estate to S.Z.).

On 12 June 1997 the court, in the presence of the expert and the petitioners, inspected the estate. On 27 June 1997 the expert submitted his report. On 25 July 1997 the petitioners requested the court to reschedule a hearing fixed for 11 September 1997. On 29 July 1997 the court refused that request.

On 8 August 1997 the applicant submitted his observations on the expert report in which he objected to its findings. On 27 August 1997 the applicant requested the court to summon expert J.W. in order to explain the differences in the value of the estate between the two expert reports.

On 11 September 1997 the court held a hearing. It refused the petitioners’ request to adjourn the hearing in view of the absence of their counsel and heard experts J.W. and W.O. The court closed the examination of the case. On 12 September 1997 the applicant requested the court to obtain yet another expert report.

On 25 September 1997 the District Court gave a decision and ordered S.Z. to pay off the applicant’s share in the estate. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for the maintenance expenses and for the house to be divided because these issues had already been determined in the decision of 26 October 1988 ( res iudicata ). The court based its decision exclusively on the report of 27 June 1997 prepared by expert W.O., which assessed the market value of the estate. It regarded the reports prepared by experts A.S. and J.W. outdated and of no use. In respect of the report prepared by expert R.L. the court considered that it should not have been taken into account since the District Court relied in its decision [of 26 October 1988], subsequently quashed, on the report prepared by that expert.

On 16 October 1997 the applicant appealed and requested the court to exempt him from the fee due for lodging an appeal. On 22 and 23 October the petitioners filed their appeals. On 25 November 1997 the District Court decided to exempt the applicant from the appeal fee, after he had submitted all necessary information in that respect.

On 17 December 1997 the case file was transferred to the Regional Court. On 18 December 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of two judges of that court. On 19 February 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing. It was adjourned until 3 April 1998 due to the absence of a witness. On the last mentioned date the court heard evidence from a witness and expert W.O. The court closed examination of the case and adjourned delivery of a decision until 8 April 1998. On 7 April 1998 the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge of 18 December 1997. On 8 April 1998 the Regional Court dismissed both appeals.

On 9 April 1998 the applicant filed a notice of cassation appeal. On 19 May 1998 he requested the Regional Court to be exempted from the fee due to lodging a cassation appeal. On 1 June 1998 the applicant lodged his cassation appeal. On 5 June 1998 the Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for exemption from the fee. On 10 June 1998 the applicant paid the fee himself.

On 9 December 1998 the Supreme Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal on the same day.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 15 October 1977 with the Kraków-Krowodrza District Court and ended on 9 December 1998 with the Supreme Court. They therefore lasted twenty-one years, one month and twenty-five days, out of which the period of five years, seven months and eight 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 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.

Vincent Berger G eorg R ess Registrar President

[Note1] Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via Alt+S please REMOVE the substitute judge’s names, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Registrar.)