FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 44161/98 by R.L. against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 31 May 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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 March 1997 and registered on 29 October 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1922 and living in Warsaw.

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

1. Civil proceedings

a. Facts prior to 1 May 1993

In June 1988 the applicant bought a new car from the Polmozbyt State Enterprise in Łódź (hereinafter “the Polmozbyt ”). On 1 February 1991 he sued the Polmozbyt and the PTHM Polmozbyt company (“the second defendant”), an authorised dealer of the Polmozbyt in Warsaw before the Warsaw- Praga District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). He requested the court to order that the defendants replace his allegedly defective car with a new one. Prior to 1 May 1993 the court held five hearings.

b. Facts after 30 April 1993

On unspecified dates in 1993 the trial court ordered that two expert reports be obtained. On 8 March 1994 the trial court ordered that an additional expert report concerning the alleged technical defects of the car be prepared. The expert M.B. submitted his report on 27 May 1994. On 28 June 1994 the expert submitted his supplementary report. On 8 September 1994 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the expert, alleging lack of competence on his part. On 5 September 1995 the District Court refused that challenge.

On 13 September and 1 October 1996 the applicant complained to the President of the Warsaw- Praga District Court and the President of the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) respectively about the excessive length of the proceedings. In a reply of 8 October 1996 the President of the District Court informed him that the case had been transferred to another judge due to a long leave of absence of the judge who had previously dealt with the case.

The trial court held twelve hearings on the following dates: 18 August, 2 and 21 September, 7 October and 30 November 1993; 8 March and 6 September 1994; 5 September 1995; 19 June, 7 November and 17 December 1996 and 19 February 1997.

On 28 February 1997 the District Court gave judgment . It dismissed the applicant’s claim against the Polmozbyt since its liability had not been established. The court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the second defendant as the claim against it had been withdrawn.

The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Warsaw Regional Court. On 23 June 1998 the Regional Court ordered fresh expert evidence with regard to the alleged technical defects of the car.

The hearing listed for 8 September 1997 was adjourned. The Regional Court held eight hearings on the following dates: 3 October and 14 November 1997; 7 January, 4 February, 2 April and 23 November 1998; 28 January and 15 March 1999.

On 27 September 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant submits that he was served with a copy of this judgment six months after it had been delivered.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate whether he lodged with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) a cassation appeal against the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment .

2. Social security proceedings

The applicant submits that he was also involved in the proceedings against the Social Security Board ( Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) which concerned the amount of his pension. They were terminated on 17 May 1991 by the judgment of the Warsaw Regional Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant, without invoking any provision of the Convention, complains about the excessive length of the civil proceedings.

2. Further, he alleges unfairness of the civil proceedings and complains about the assessment of expert evidence by the domestic courts.

3. The applicant also complains about the outcome of the proceedings against the Social Security Board which were terminated by the judgment of the Warsaw Regional Court of 17 May 1991.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of the civil proceedings. The Court finds that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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 further complains about the unfairness of the civil proceedings and about the assessment of expert evidence.

Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the Court “may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law”.

With respect to the above complaint, which falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate whether or not he lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgment given in the proceedings.

However, the Court does not consider it necessary to decide whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention because, even assuming that such remedies have been exhausted, this part of the application must in any event be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.

The Court reiterates that according to Article 19 of the Convention, the Court’s duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties in the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45 and 46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

The Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing but objects to the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings. The applicant further complains about the assessment of expert evidence in the proceedings concerned.

The Court finds no elements which would indicate that the national courts went beyond their discretion as to the assessment of expert evidence presented in the course of the proceedings complained of. Nor does it consider that the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings had in itself any bearing on the applicant’s right to a fair trial. Assessing the proceedings complained of as a whole, the Court finds no indication that they were unfairly conducted.

It follows that this part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant also complains about the outcome of the proceedings against the Social Security Board which were terminated by the judgment of the Warsaw Regional Court of 17 May 1991.

The Court notes that this complaint relates to the events which took place before 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland’s declaration recognising the right of individual petition for the purposes of former Article 25 of the Convention took effect.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to paragraph 4 of that Article.

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 B erger G eorg Ress

Registrar President