FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 49920/99 by Józef CWYL and Dariusz CWYL against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 28 June 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 12 January 1999 and registered on 28 July 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Józef Cwyl and Dariusz Cwyl, are Polish nationals , born in 1936 and 1958 respectively and living in Brwinów , Poland.

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

On 11 May 1989 they filed with the Pruszków District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an action in which they claimed the payment by an enterprise run by a local State authority of the agreed price for their transportation services.

On 5 November 1990 the court awarded them the claimed amount. The State authority’s representative lodged an appeal.

On 27 March 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 5 June 1991 the District Court summoned the Brwinów commune’s board ( zarząd miasta i gminy ), a self-governmental successor of the local State authority, to take part in the proceedings as the defendant. The commune’s board refused to comply with the summons, submitting that the liquidator of the enterprise should be summoned. The applicants’ lawyer directed his further pleadings against the enterprise.

The court held a hearing on 2 October 1991.

On 9 September 1991 the enterprise was summoned to take part in the proceedings.

On 20 May 1992 the court stayed the proceedings. Subsequently, the enterprise ceased to exist and the applicants’ lawyer stated that the Brwinów commune ( gmina ) should be considered its legal successor.

The proceedings were resumed and the court held a hearing on 13 January 1994.

At the hearing held on 8 April 1994 the applicants increased the claimed amount.

The court held hearings on 18 January 1996 and 28 March 1997.

On 1 September 1997 the applicants further increased the claimed amount, relying on the then existing prices of the transportation services.

On 4 November 1998, in reply to the applicants’ complaint, the President of the Warsaw Regional Court admitted that the proceedings were lengthy and informed that they had been taken under his and the President of the Pruszków District Court’s administrative supervision.

The court held a hearing on 30 December 1998. It adjourned the hearing scheduled for 17 February 1999 because of the lawyer of the defendant’s failure to attend. The court held a further hearing on 5 May 1999.

On 14 July 1999 the commune proposed a friendly settlement, but the applicants did not accept its conditions.

On 2 August 1999 the Pruszków District Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicants the amount claimed by them. The court noted that the applicants could have claimed more, but since it was bound by their statement of claim, it could not award more than they had indicated there. They appealed.

On 7 April 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal.

Subsequently, the applicants requested the Ombudsman and the Ministry of Justice to lodge a cassation appeal on their behalf, but to no avail.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.

2. They further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the District Court favoured the defendant and acted in such a way as to make it impossible for them to obtain the payment of the price for the services they had performed.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

2. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged favouring of the defendant by the District Court.

Even assuming that the applicants have exhausted domestic remedies, the Court notes that, in any event, they have failed to provide any prima facie evidence supporting their allegation. It therefore rejects this complaint as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint about [Note1] the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President

[Note1] Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.