FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 60225/00 by Mária JABLONSKÁ 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 on 20 April 2000 and registered on 24 August 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mária Jablonská, is a Slovak national of Polish origin. She was born in 1921 in Warsaw and is living in Senec, Slovakia.

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

1. Background.

The applicant's parents owned a house in Warsaw before the Second World War. In 1945, pursuant to a decree of 26 October 1945, all the land in Warsaw was nationalised. The applicant's parents were allocated a flat in Warsaw. Later, they requested the administrative authorities to grant them a right of perpetual use ( prawo wieczystej dzierżawy ) of their house. On 10 July 1951 the Warsaw National Council ( Rada Narodowa ) refused their request. After the death of her parents, the applicant, who is the sole heir to the property, sought restitution of or compensation for her parent's property.

2.Civil proceedings against Mr S. and Mrs G-S .

(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993

By a notarial deed of 4 December 1989 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office ( Urząd Dzielnicowy ) granted a married couple, Mr S. and Mrs G-S. the right of perpetual use ( prawo użytkowania wieczystego ) of the estate which had once belonged to the applicant's parents. Mr S. and Mrs G-S. claimed to be legal successors of the applicant's parents under a contract transferring the title to the estate which had been allegedly concluded in 1967.

On 17 June 1991 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) asked the State Notary Office in Warsaw ( Państwowe Biuro Notarialne ) to enter a caution ( zastrzeżenie ) in the land register with the effect that no transfer of the title to the said estate be allowed.

On 17 February 1992 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Wojewódzki ) filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) against Mr S. and Mrs G-S. and the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office, seeking to have the notarial deed of 4 December 1989 declared null and void. The Prosecutor also requested the court to issue an interim order preventing Mr S. and Mrs G-S. from disposing of the estate.

On 30 March 1992 Mr S. and Mrs G-S. sold the property to a certain Ms J.P.

On 3 April 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court against Mr S. and Mrs G-S., seeking the annulment of the notarial deed of 4 December 1989.

On 4 May 1992 the court issued an interim measure as sought by the Regional Prosecutor.

On 23 June 1992 the court joined the action of the Regional Prosecutor and the one brought by the applicant.

(b) Facts after 30 April 1993

On 15 December 1993 the court held a hearing. On 28 December 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment and declared the notarial deed of 4 December 1989 null and void. The defendants appealed. On 14 June 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) set aside the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. On 22 November 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment and declared the impugned notarial deed null and void. It established that in 1967 no contract had been concluded between the applicant's parents and the defendants. The defendants lodged an appeal against that judgment. On 7 May 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It appears that none of the parties to the proceedings filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) against the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal.

3.Civil proceedings against Ms J.P.

(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 5 November 1992 the applicant sued Ms J.P. before the Warsaw Regional Court. She requested that the notarial deed of 30 March 1992 concluded between the defendant and Mr S. and Mrs G-S. be declared null and void.

(b) Facts after 30 April 1993

On 13 May 1993 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the proceedings brought against Mr S. and Mrs G-S. (described above). On 30 September 1997 the trial court resumed the proceedings. It listed a hearing for 5 March 1998. A hearing listed for 2 June 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant's lawyer. A hearing listed for 23 June 1999 was adjourned due to the absence of the defendant. A hearing listed for 3 November 1999 was adjourned because the judge rapporteur was ill. The court listed a further hearing for 12 July 2000.

On 12 July 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment declaring the notarial deed of 30 March 1992 null and void. It appears that the defendant lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Court of Appeal and the proceedings are pending before that court.

4.Criminal proceedings

On 7 November 1990 the applicant requested the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor to institute an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the title to the estate of her parents. Subsequently, on 9 March 1994 the District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against Mr S. and Mrs G-S. with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). They were indicted on charges of having forged the 1967 contract transferring the title to the estate of the applicant's parents.

On 29 November 1996 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court convicted Mr S. and Mrs G-S. as charged and sentenced them to two years' imprisonment (suspended) and a fine. On an unknown date in 1997, upon an appeal of the accused, the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. On 14 July 1999 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court again convicted the accused of the same offences and sentenced them to eighteen months' imprisonment (suspended) and a fine. Mr S. and Mrs G-S. appealed against that judgment to the Warsaw Regional Court. On 27 April 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing. It quashed the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court's judgment of 14 July 1999 and remitted the case to the District Prosecutor ordering a supplementary investigation. It appears that the applicant participated in these proceedings as an auxiliary prosecutor ( oskarżyciel posiłkowy ). The applicant was not a civil party to the proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings against Mr S. and Mrs G-S. and the length of the civil proceedings against Ms J.P.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against Mr S. and Mrs G-S.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings against Mr S. and Mrs G-S.

However, the Court finds that the final decision in those proceedings was given by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 7 May 1997, which is more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for failure to respect the six-month rule referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected under paragraph 4 of that Article.

2. The applicant further complains about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings against Ms J.P.

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.

3. Lastly, the applicant complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against Mr S. and Mrs G-S.

However, the Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person and to have the person concerned convicted is not as such guaranteed by the Convention, unless it is decisive for the determination of the applicant's civil rights and obligations (see Mecili v. France, application no. 23997/94, Commission decision of 15 May 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 81-B, p. 105).

The Court observes that the proceedings complained of did not concern the determination of the applicant's civil rights and obligations or a criminal charge against her. It further notes that it appears from the case file that the applicant participated in these proceedings as an auxiliary prosecutor and that what she sought in the proceedings was not to have her “civil rights and obligations” determined but to have Mr S. and Mrs G-S. convicted of a criminal offence.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 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 against Ms J.P. 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