FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 47404/99 by Mirosław WITCZAK 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 I. Cabral Barreto , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr M. Pellonpää , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 11 November 1998 and registered on 13 April 1999,

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 is a Polish national, born in 1947 and living in Radom , Poland.

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

In 1977 the applicant, while serving a prison sentence, was injured in an occupational accident. He lodged a compensation claim with the Warsaw Regional Court against the State Treasury. By the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment of 11 June 1980 the applicant was awarded a monthly pension of 500 (old) PLN, payable from 1 February 1978, and a lump sum of 12,000 PLN as compensation.

On 21 November 1991 the applicant lodged an action with the Warsaw Regional Court claiming that his pension be increased. On an unspecified later date the Warsaw Regional Court transferred his case to the Lublin Regional Court, considering that it had jurisdiction, regard being had to the fact that in 1977 the applicant had been imprisoned within its jurisdiction.

On 8 February 1993 a hearing was held before the Lublin Regional Court. The applicant did not attend it, despite being properly summoned. The court obliged the applicant to specify his claim, and on 11 March 1993 the applicant complied with this order.

Apparently later the Lublin Regional Court requested the Radom District Court to take certain evidence for the purpose of the case. On 16 June 1993 a hearing was held before the Radom District Court. The court allowed evidence from the expert orthopaedist. On 25 November 1993 next hearing took place before the Radom District Court. On 20 December 1993 the court heard the applicant and took evidence from L.I., an expert surgeon orthopaedist.

On 5 April 1994 a hearing was held before the Lublin Regional Court. On 6 July and on 7 September 1994 the Radom District Court held further hearings in the case. At the latter  hearing, the court expert L.I. submitted his supplementary opinion as to the applicant’s state of health.

On 21 November and 20 December 1994 further hearings were held  before the Lublin Regional Court.

By a judgment of 30 December 1994 the Lublin Regional Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered that a compensation of 107,000,000 (old) PLN be paid to him, as well as 1,629,650 (old) PLN as monthly pension, from 1 September 1995. The defendant State Treasury, represented by the Warsaw Detention Centre, lodged an appeal against this judgment. As a result, on 31 May 1995 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the judgment under appeal and ordered the case to be reconsidered.

On 19 July 1995 the applicant requested that the judgment be served on him. Apparently, there was no reply to his request.

On 25 November 1995 the applicant again complained to the President of the Lublin Regional Court that the judgment of the appellate court had not been served on him. In a reply of 15 December 1995, the President informed him that his request could not have been complied with as the Lublin Court of Appeal had transferred the case file to the Regional Court only on 2 December 1995.  On 4 December 1995 the copy of the appellate judgment had been sent to the applicant.

On 12 November 1996 a hearing was held before the Lublin Regional Court.

On 3 January 1997 T.R., an expert physician appointed by the court submitted his report with respect to the applicant’s health. On 25 February 1997 a hearing was held before the Lublin Regional Court.

In a further letter of 23 June 1997 the President of the Lublin Regional Court informed the applicant, in reply to his complaint of 14 May 1997 about the excessive length of proceedings, that their length was determined by the complex character of the case and by the fact that the first-instance judgment had been quashed by the Court of Appeal.

On 22 July 1997 a next hearing was held.

On 7 October 1997 the Lublin Regional Court issued an interim decision ordering the defendant to pay to the applicant 357 (new) PLN per month as a security of his claim. On 7 April 1998 a hearing took place before the Lublin Regional Court.

On 21 May 1998 the court imposed a fine on an expert failing to submit her supplementary report on time.

On 17 June 1998 T.R., an expert appointed by the court, submitted her opinion. She considered that he suffered a 15% damage to his health caused by the accident of 1977.

On 2 July 1998 the applicant challenged this opinion.

On 16 September 1998 a hearing was held before the Lublin Regional Court. On 24 September 1998 the applicant specified his claim.

On 27 November 1998 the applicant underwent a medical examination. T.R., an expert, reiterated that he suffered a 15% loss of health. On 21 December 1998 the applicant again challenged this opinion.

On 9 February 1999 a further hearing was held. The applicant’s lawyer filed a motion to adjourn the hearing and summon J.K., an expert physician, to be questioned.

On 3 March and 7 April 1999 the Lublin Regional Court held further hearings. On the latter date J.K. submitted his report.

On 14 April 1999 the Lublin Regional Court quashed the decision concerning the security to be paid to the applicant. The court found that in view of the expert opinions the applicant was no longer eligible for security. On 25 August 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal of 17 May 1999 against this decision.

On 31 January 2000 A.S., a further expert physician appointed by the court, submitted an opinion to the effect that the damage to the applicant’s health resulting from the 1977 accident of 1977 should be assessed at 15%. The applicant was fit to perform physical work and he was not eligible for a disability pension.

On 21 March 2000 the Lublin Regional Court held a further hearing. The applicant withdrew his claim with respect to the payment of a pension for the period between 1996 and 25 June 1999. The expert A.S. replied to the questions of the court. On 26 April 2000 a further hearing was held.

On 10 May 2000 the Lublin Regional Court gave a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim in its entirety. On 25 June 2000 the applicant appealed.

On 28 September 2000 the Lublin Court of Appeal held a hearing. By a judgment of 11 October 2000 the court partially altered the judgement of the Lublin Regional Court increasing the applicant’s monthly pension to 280 PLN and awarding him compensation of 4179 PLN for the period between 1 July 1989 and 31 December 1999.

On 5 December 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

The proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

He further complains, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, that because of the undue length of the proceedings he cannot have his case determined by the Supreme Court.

THE LAW

1. The applicant’s first  complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on November 1991 and are now pending before the Supreme Court. They have therefore already lasted nine years and eleven months.

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.

2. The applicant further complains, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, that because of the undue length of the proceedings he cannot have his case determined by the Supreme Court.

The applicant reiterates his complaint that he did not have effective remedy to complain about the length of the proceedings.

The Government maintain that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that he did not lodge a civil action against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code, claiming compensation for damage caused by the state official in carrying out of his or her duties in that the judicial proceedings were of an unreasonable length.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Vincent Berger Georg ress Registrar President