FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 39597/98 by E. B. against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 22 March 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 15 July 1997 and registered on 2 February 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 1952 and living in Warsaw.

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

The applicant is a civil servant at the Office of the Council of Ministers ( Urząd Rady Ministrów ). In 1992 the Office informed its employees about a possibility to buy a flat in the housing co-operative with which it had concluded an agreement. In view of a large number of candidates the Office decided that preference would be given to those who would undertake to make the flats at that time occupied by them available to the Office. The applicant submitted her application. In November 1993 the co-operative allocated her a flat. However, the costs of construction she had to cover were much higher than those provided for in the agreement between the Office and the housing co-operative. The applicant also learnt that out of 10 candidates who had been allocated new flats she was the only one to have made the previous flat available to the Office of the Council of Ministers.

On 13 July 1995 the applicant filed with the Warszawa-Mokotów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an action against the Office of the Council of Ministers and the housing co-operative. In her action she requested, inter alia , that a new flat be granted to her, submitting that the area of the one allocated to her allegedly differed from the area indicated in the decision granting it to her. The applicant also claimed damages for losses allegedly sustained by her as a result of the increase of the construction costs.

On 18 July 1995 the District Court declared its lack of jurisdiction over the case and transmitted it to the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ).

On 23 September 1995 the court ordered the applicant to indicate the value of her claim ( wartość przedmiotu sporu ). On 5 October 1995 the court again ordered her to indicate that value, considering that the information provided by her in reply to the previous court order was not satisfactory. In her letter of 16 October 1995 the applicant indicated the value of her claim. On 8 November 1995 she was again ordered to provide certain information concerning the value of the claim. On 23 November 1995 she submitted the relevant information.

On 27 November 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court, having examined the applicant’s request, exempted her partially from the court fees. She appealed against that decision. On 27 February 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed her appeal.

On 13 May 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for free legal assistance, considering that at that stage of the proceedings legal assistance was not necessary. The court noted that neither the circumstances of the case, nor the applicant’s financial situation would call for granting her a legal-aid lawyer. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 19 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.

On 9 October 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing.

In the pleadings of 15 December 1996 the applicant’s lawyer modified her action and raised additional claims, inter alia , for compensation for the allegedly deceitful taking over of her previous flat by the Office of the Council of Ministers.

On 19 January 1998 the applicant filed a request for an interim measure. The request was dismissed.

On 24 March 1998 the court held a hearing.

On 17 February 1999 the applicant submitted a request for legal assistance, stating that she had not been able to contact a lawyer chosen by her.

At the hearing held on 9 June 1999 the court ordered an expert opinion concerning the construction costs.

The proceedings are pending.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time.

2. She further submits that the Office of the Council of Ministers violated her right to respect for home by the allegedly deceitful taking over of her flat.

3. The applicant seems to complain about the refusal to grant her legal assistance.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time.

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 applicant complains that her right to respect for her home was violated by the Office of the Council of Ministers.

The Court finds that the applicant’s complaint is premature as the proceedings concerning her flat are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court. The domestic remedies have therefore not been exhausted as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

3. The applicant complains that she was refused free legal assistance.

The Court observes that the only final decision concerning this complaint available to the Court was given by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 19 July 1996, thus more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted. The applicant has not provided any precise information about other refusals.

It follows that this complaint is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule laid down in 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 under Article 6 concerning the length of the proceedings;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President