FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 48001/99 by Stanisław GOC against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mr V. Butkevych , Mr J. Hedigan , Mrs S. Botoucharova , judges and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 July 1998 and registered on 8 May 1999,

Having regard to the partial decision of 6 July 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, Stanisław Goc, a Polish national, was born in 1904.

By letter of 5 January 2001, the applicant’s son, T.G., informed the Court that the applicant had died on 2 December 2000 and that he, one of the applicant’s heirs, wished to pursue his father’s application.

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

1. Facts prior to 1 May 1993

The applicant was the co-owner of a plot of land and a house in Warsaw. The house consists of two apartments, basement and attic.

On 23 September 1980 G.G., one of the co-owners (the petitioner) filed with the Warsaw-Praga District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) an application for partition of the property.

On 2 August 1984 the District Court gave a decision. On 21 January 1985, on the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) quashed the decision and remitted the case.

On 24 September 1986, upon the request of the petitioner, the District Court issued an interim order enjoining any third parties to abstain from entering the attic of the house.

On 27 May 1988 the court issued another interim order enjoining the applicant and his wife to abstain from carrying out any works in the house. On 24 November 1989 the court rejected another request of the petitioner for an interim order to be issued.

Having obtained a number of expert reports, the District Court gave a preliminary decision ( postanowienie wstępne ) on 22 December 1989. On 9 July 1990, on the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed the contested decision.

On 24 December 1990 the applicant filed with the District Court an application for permission to carry out works concerning gas supply to his apartment. On 8 March 1991 the court decided to join his application to the merits of the proceedings concerning partition of the property. On 7 June 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 March 1991 as inadmissible in law.

On 4 March 1992 the court rejected the applicant’s request for an interim order authorising some works at the attic of the house. On 10 June 1992 the Regional Court upheld this decision.

2. Facts after 30 April 1993

On an unknown date the District Court decided to hold a view of the site. By a letter of 8 April 1994 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that the date of the view had twice been fixed (for 14 October 1993 and 24 March 1994), but the court had not appeared on the site. On 29 April 1994 the court rejected the applicant’s request to hold a view of the site. On 27 May 1994 the applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the District Court as being inadmissible in law.

On 29 April 1994 the District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Institute of Construction Technology ( Instytut Techniki Budowlanej ).

Since 2 February 1995 the case file was with the Regional Court due to the applicant’s appeal against an unspecified decision of the District Court. On 20 March 1995 the Regional Court upheld the decision. On 27 April 1995 the case file was returned to the District Court.

On 4 May 1995 the court requested the Director of the Institute of Construction Technology to indicate an expert in charge of preparation of the report ordered by the court.

On 8 June 1995 the case file was sent to the Institute of Construction Technology in order to prepare the report. On 16 August 1995 the District Court requested the Institute to expedite preparation of the report. On 22 November 1995 the court received the expert report and served copies thereof on the parties.

In December 1995 the applicant submitted to the court his observations on the expert report. On 22 December 1995 and 20 February 1996 B.G., one of the co-owners, submitted her observations on the expert report. On 15 March 1996 the applicant submitted to the court his pleading.

On 20 March 1996 the applicant again filed with the District Court an application for permission to carry out works concerning gas supply to his apartment.

On 9 April 1996 the court held a hearing. On 20 April 1996 G.G. and B.G. (the co-owners) submitted to the court their pleadings. On 29 October 1996 the court held a hearing.

On 21 November 1996 the applicant requested that B.G. and G.G. be ordered to inform the court about their position on the applicant’s request of 20 March 1996.

On 3 February 1997 B.G. and G.G. requested the District Court to adjourn the proceedings due to the poor state of health of B.G. They also informed the court that they objected to any works in the house being carried out by the applicant.

On 4 February 1997 the court stayed the proceedings because it could not establish address of D.B., one of the parties to the proceedings (grandson of the petitioner). The proceedings were resumed on 6 October 1996.

On 16 December 1997 the court stayed the proceedings because B.G., one of the parties, had died.

On 16 September 1999 the applicant submitted to the District Court information about the sole heir of B.G. and requested the court that the proceedings be resumed. On 17 November 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s request. On 8 February 2000 the Regional Court upheld that decision.

On 10 March 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of the estate of the deceased B.G. On 30 August 2000 the court appointed G.G., the petitioner, as the guardian of the estate.

It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw-Praga District Court.

THE LAW

1. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant has died after the introduction of his application and that his son has informed the Court that he wishes to pursue the application introduced by his father.

The respondent Government submit that the applicant’s son cannot be considered as a person entitled to pursue the proceedings before the Court on the applicant’s behalf and invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.

The Court recalls that it has accepted on a number of occasions that the close relatives of a deceased applicant may be entitled to take his or her place (see, inter alia , the Scherer v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287, p. 14-15, § 31 with further references). In the present case, the Court considers that the conditions for striking the case out of the list of cases, as defined in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, are not met and it accepts that the applicant’s son can pursue the application.

2. The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 23 September 1980 with the Warsaw-Praga District Court and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted twenty-one years and one month, out of which eight years, five months and twenty-two days fall 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 Georg Ress Registrar President