FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 39505/98 by W. M. 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 lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 August 1997 and registered on 23 January 1998,

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 11 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, W. M., is a Polish national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw.

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

On 18 May 1992 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) an action in which he sought the eviction of a tenant from an apartment situated in a house belonging to him. In addition, the applicant requested that the tenant pay overdue rent and be also evicted from the basement of the building.

Having held two hearings, on 9 October 1992 and 5 February 1993, the Warsaw District Court delivered its judgment on 11 February 1993. It ruled that the tenant should pay the overdue rent and be evicted from the basement, but dismissed the action for eviction from the apartment.

On unspecified dates the applicant and the defendant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) appeals against that judgment. On 19 October 1993 a hearing was adjourned because of an illness of the judge rapporteur.

On 26 November 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing and pronounced a judgment in which it quashed the judgment of 11 February 1993 and remitted the case for re-examination. The court found serious shortcomings in the assessment of the evidence by the first-instance court and errors of law.

Between 26 November 1993 and 27 November 1995 no hearing was held. Between 27 November 1995 and 3 June 1998 the Warsaw District Court scheduled nineteen hearings, two of which were adjourned. One of the adjournments resulted from an illness of the judge rapporteur.

On 3 and 17 June 1998 the court adjourned the delivery of its judgment. On 1 July 1998 the court decided to re-open the examination of the case and ordered an expert opinion.

On 6 July 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint against its decision of 17 June 1998, considering that there was no remedy against that decision.

On 25 January 1999 a summons for a hearing was served on the applicant, but, as the hearing was supposed to take place on 29 January 1999, he requested that it be rescheduled.

On 23 June 1999 the court adjourned the delivery of its judgment until 7 July 1999.

On 2 August 1999 the Warsaw District Court delivered a partial judgment ( wyrok częściowy ). It ordered the eviction of the defendant from the basement and dismissed the claim concerning the eviction from the apartment.

On 23 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment. On 26 November 1999 the defendant lodged his appeal. On 21 February 2000, following the District Court’s summons of 17 December 1999, the applicant rectified formal shortcomings of his appeal.

On 30 May 2000 the District Court summoned the applicant to pay the court fees due for lodging his appeal. On 21 June 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that the defendant had died. He also requested that the defendant’s widow join the proceedings as a defendant.

On 20 October 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing. No parties appeared. The court stayed the proceedings due to the defendant’s death.

On 3 November 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to submit information about all legal successors of the deceased defendant. On 14 November 2000 the applicant submitted the information.

On 5 December 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and resumed the proceedings. The court adjourned the hearing until 28 December 2000 at the request of the defendant’s widow.

On 28 December 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and set aside the contested partial judgment of the District Court. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of the eviction of the defendant due to his death. The court also rejected as submitted too late the applicant’s request to summon the defendant’s widow to join the proceedings as a defendant. It also considered that the proceedings in respect of the applicant’s claim for overdue rent could be continued with the participation of the heirs of the defendant.

The decision of the Regional Court was served on the applicant on 12 March 2001.

On 19 March 2001 the applicant requested the District Court that the proceedings be reopened.

It appears that the proceedings are pending before the District Court in respect of the claim for overdue rent.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 18 May 1992 with the Warsaw District Court and are apparently still pending. They have therefore already lasted nine years, five months and five days, out of which the period of eight years, five months and twenty-two 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 Georg Ress Registrar President