FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 46243/99 by Henryk KOLASIŃSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 14 June 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 introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 February 1998 and registered on 19 February 1999,

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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Henryk Kolasiński , is a Polish citizen, born in 1927 and living in Koszalin , Poland.

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

a. Facts prior to 1 May 1993

The applicant’s wife died on 15 May 1990. Later, J.K., the applicant’s stepdaughter, initiated inheritance proceedings before the Koszalin District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). On 2 October 1990 the District Court declared that the estate of the applicant’s wife be inherited by the applicant, J.K. and her two grandsons, R.F. and M.F.

On 28 December 1990 M.F., one of the grandsons, filed an application for distribution of the estate of the applicant’s wife with the Koszalin District Court. He also applied to the court for dissolution of the joint matrimonial property of the applicant and his late wife. The applicant and other heirs were the parties to these proceedings.

On 16 January 1991 the District Court exempted M.F. from the court fees. On 4 December 1992 the court held the first hearing.

b. Facts after 30 April 1993

In a letter of 5 May 1993 the applicant requested the Chief Judge of the Civil Division of the Koszalin District Court to expedite the proceedings. In a reply of 17 May 1993 the Chief Judge informed the applicant that the length of the proceedings was caused mainly by the fact that the parties had repeatedly changed their position and that several judges rapporteurs had dealt with the case.

On 12 May and 26 July 1993 the applicant submitted his pleading to the court. On 18 September and 26 October 1993 the applicant requested the District Court to give a preliminary decision in respect of the savings of the applicant and his late wife which, according to the applicant, constituted their joint matrimonial property.

On 5 November 1993 and 20 January 1994 the court held hearings.

On 17 February 1994 the District Court gave a decision, determining the assets which constituted separate property of the applicant’s wife and distributed it among the heirs.

On 11 April 1994 the applicant appealed to the Koszalin Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ).

On 5 July 1994 the Regional Court set aside the decision of the District Court of 17 February 1994 and remitted the case.

On 5 September 1994 the applicant submitted a pleading to the District Court. On 4 November 1994 the District Court ordered that the applicant produce evidence in support of his submissions. Later, he filed four further pleadings with the court.

On 29 June 1995 the District Court held a hearing and ordered that expert evidence be obtained in order to determine the value of interests on savings of the applicant and his wife.

In a letter of 24 November 1995 to the President of the Koszalin District Court the applicant requested that the proceedings be concluded as soon as possible. In a reply of 5 December 1995 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that complex questions of fact and law were involved in the proceedings and that, therefore, they could not be promptly concluded. The President of the District Court further admitted that there was a certain delay in the proceedings.

On 14 December 1995 the applicant requested that the President of the Koszalin Regional Court transfer the case from the Koszalin District Court to another court in view of the protracted length of the proceedings. On 16 January 1996 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that there were no legal basis to transfer the case.

On 6 February 1996 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court. On 13 February 1996 the District Court served the expert report on the parties and invited them to submit their observation thereon.

In a letter of 21 February 1996 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that his complaint about the delays in the proceedings was justified to some extent.

On 10 June 1996 the court held a hearing.

On 22 August 1996 the Koszalin District Court gave a decision, determining the assets which constituted the joint matrimonial property and those which constituted separate property of the applicant’s wife. The court distributed the inheritance among the parties to the proceedings.

On 30 September 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Koszalin Regional Court. Other parties also appealed against the first-instance decision.

On 22 April 1997 the Koszalin Regional Court set aside the impugned decision and remitted the case.

On 16 July and 1 September 1997 the applicant submitted a pleading to the District Court. On 11 September 1997 the court held a hearing. On 17 September 1997 the applicant submitted an additional pleading to the court. On 22 October 1997 the applicant requested the President of the Koszalin District Court to expedite the proceedings in view of his state of health.

On 21 and 28 November 1997 the applicant submitted further pleadings to the court. On 2 December 1997 he requested that the District Court give a preliminary decision.

At the hearing held on 4 December 1997 the parties settled their claims in respect of a number of movables which were part of separate property of the applicant’s wife. Subsequently, the court discontinued the proceedings in that respect.

On 31 December 1997 and 5 February 1998 the applicant requested that the District Court give a preliminary decision. On 19 February 1998 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Minister of Justice.

On 8 April 1998 the applicant filed a pleading with the court. On 10 April 1998 the court held a hearing. On 21 April 1998 the applicant submitted a pleading to the court.

On 24 April 1998 the District Court gave a partial decision ( postanowienie częściowe ), distributing the interests on the applicant’s and his wife’s savings among the parties. It appears that no party appealed against that decision.

On 24 May 1998 the District Court held a hearing.

On 25 May 1998 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that the President of the Koszalin Regional Court would take the case under his supervision.

On 12 June 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to provide him with an enforcement order with regard to the decision of 24 April 1998.

On 30 June 1998 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the proceedings would be concluded soon.

The District Court held a hearing on 3 July 1998. On 14 and 21 July 1998 the applicant submitted pleadings to the court. The court held further hearings on 7 and 28 August 1998.

On 1 October 1998 an expert report was submitted to the court. It concerned the value of the car which had been co-owned by the applicant and his late wife. On 5 November 1998 the applicant submitted a pleading to the court.

On 20 November 1998 the District Court gave a decision in which it established that nearly all the assets of the applicant’s late wife constituted the joint matrimonial property of the spouses. The court distributed the estate of the applicant’s wife among the heirs.

On 15 January 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Koszalin Regional Court. Other parties to the proceedings appealed as well.

On 27 April 1999 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about a delay in the proceedings, in particular about the fact that his appeal of 15 January 1999 had not been transmitted to the Regional Court.

On 28 September 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing. The hearings listed for 12 and 26 October 1999 were adjourned. On 4 November 1999 the Regional Court gave a decision and dismissed the appeals of all parties.

On 15 March 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ). M.F., one of the parties to the proceedings, also lodged his cassation appeal.

On 26 June 2000 the applicant submitted to the Supreme Court his observations on the cassation appeal lodged by M.F.

On 23 April 2001 the Supreme Court refused to examine the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. It appears that the proceedings in the Supreme Court are pending in respect of the cassation appeal lodged by M.F.

COMPLAINTS

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

2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly unjust decisions given by the Koszalin District Court and the errors of law and fact committed by that court.

3. The applicant further alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that he has been deprived of any possibility to enjoy his property rights and has incurred significant financial losses as a result of the protracted length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive 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 Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly unjust decisions given by the Koszalin District Court and the errors of law and fact committed by that court.

He further alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

However, the Court notes that the relevant proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court and that, therefore, these complaints are premature.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the length of the civil proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President