FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 37443/97 by Maciej LISIAK 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 ,

Mr M. Pellonpää , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 February 1997 and registered on 22 August 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the partial decision of 15 June 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, Maciej Lisiak , is a Polish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Bielsko-Biała , Poland . In the proceedings before the Court, the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Drzewicki , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

A. Facts that took place before 1 May 1993

On 10 August 1991 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of homicide. On 12 August 1991 the Bielsko-Biała District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) charged him with homicide and uttering threats, and detained him on remand.

On 30 April 1992 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court .

The trial began on 16 June 1992.

On 14 October 1992 Court quashed the order for the applicant’s detention. The Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor appealed against that decision. The Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 4 November 1992. It held that a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged was no longer justified because the witness, who had originally incriminated him, had fundamentally changed his previous testimony.

From 16 June 1992 to 1 May 1993 the trial court held 14 hearings. It heard evidence from twenty lay witnesses and one expert witness.

B. Facts that took place after 1 May 1993

From 4 May 1993 to 25 May 1994 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court held ten hearings. It heard evidence from forty-one witnesses and two experts. Evidence from some of those witnesses was reheard several times.

On 25 May 1994 the court acquitted the applicant. On 12 October 1994 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor appealed against the first-instance judgment.

The appeal was heard before the Katowice Court of Appeal on 9 March 1995. The court quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor, holding that a further investigation should be carried out. In particular, the court ordered the prosecutor to obtain evidence from experts in psychology to establish the perception skills and personality of S.U., the main prosecution witness, and to assess the credibility of evidence given by that witness.

On 12 May 1995 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor requested the Institute of Forensic Experts ( Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych ) in Cracow to prepare a report and to resolve contradictions between two previous reports made by experts in psychology.

The experts from the Institute fixed the dates of the examination for 19 December 1995 and 12 February 1996 respectively. However, S.U. did not keep his appointment for the examination on either of these dates. Eventually, he appeared before the experts on 9 May 1996 and was examined by them on that day. Their report was ready on 6 September 1996.

On 30 December 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court . The applicant was again indicted on the charges of homicide and uttering threats.

On 27 March 1997 the trial court remitted the case to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor, holding that the prosecution had not complied with the orders given by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 9 March 1995 and had not, among other things, reconstructed the scene of the crime.

On 30 April 1997 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant for the third time.

The retrial started on 4 September 1997. The subsequent hearings were held on 4 November 1997, 6 January 1998 and 8 April 1998.

On 9 June 1998 the trial was adjourned because a new judge rapporteur had in the meantime been appointed and had to study the case-file.

The next hearing was listed for 26 March 1999 but the trial was again adjourned. The applicant was absent at that hearing. The applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that he had left for Greece in search of odd jobs and that he would be absent for some four months. In fact, the applicant returned after three weeks. The court, considering that the applicant’s absence might last for several months and finding that S.U. had left for the United States without indicating his new address, stayed the proceedings. It appears that the proceedings were resumed at some later, unknown date. They are pending.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that his right to a “hearing within a reasonable time” had not been respected. He alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 10 August 1991 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted some ten years and two months, of which the period of about eight years and five 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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President