FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 37761/97 by Elżbieta LISŁAWSKA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 12 December 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr V. Butkevych , Mr J. Hedigan , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 November 1996 and registered on 13 September 1997,

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 1926 and living in Gliwice . She is represented before the Court by Mr Jan PiÄ…tkowski, a lawyer practising in Opole , Poland.

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

The applicant has been a member of the “ Domek ” Building Co-operative ( Spółdzielcze Zrzeszenie Budowy Domków Jednorodzinnych ) in Kraków since 1976. Under a contract concluded between the applicant and the co-operative, the latter was to construct a house for her. On 18 September 1978 the Board of the co-operative assigned a plot of land to the applicant designed for the future construction of her house. She made the required partial payment for the house in 1979. The remainder of the payment was covered by the mortgage granted to the applicant in 1983 (pursuant to a contract between the co-operative and a bank). In September 1983 the co-operative placed the house at the applicant’s disposal but, according to her submissions, the house had not been finished off in a way stipulated in the contract.

On an unknown date in 1984 the applicant filed a civil action with the Kraków Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), seeking that certain resolutions of the co-operative be declared null and void. On 30 May 1986 the court partly granted her claim. On 22 December 1986, on the co-operative’s appeal, the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) amended the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action.

The applicant was also involved in administrative proceedings concerning her claim for the so-called “right of perpetual use” ( prawo użytkowania wieczystego ) of the plot to be transferred from the co-operative to her. She has not, however, submitted any grievances in respect of those proceedings.

1. Proceedings concerning the action for damages

(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 18 September 1985 the applicant sued the co-operative in the Kraków Regional Court, seeking damages for the incomplete and defective construction of the house. She also claimed that part of the mortgage which had not been spent on the construction should be repaid by the defendant.

On 10 December 1985 the applicant modified her claim. She requested that the defendant be ordered to carry out certain construction works in the house or, alternatively, to pay her compensation. In addition, the applicant claimed compensation for other expenses incurred by her in connection with the construction.

On 20 January 1992 the court held a hearing. The applicant withdrew her claim for certain construction works to be carried out since the defendant had made them.

On 4 September 1992 the applicant again modified her claim. On 14 December 1992 she requested that the co-operative be ordered to finish the entry staircase in the house or, in the alternative, that she be granted compensation. Further, the applicant asked to be reimbursed for the garage and balcony doors which she had bought and requested the court to order the defendant to repay the mortgage.

(b) Facts after 1 May 1993

On 2 June 1993 the applicant asked the court to rectify the minutes of a hearing. During a hearing held on 3 June 1993, the co-operative submitted its friendly settlement proposals.

On 20 October 1993 the applicant again modified her claim asking that the defendant be ordered to finish the construction of the house as specified in the contract between the parties.

Since some unspecified date the applicant has been represented by a lawyer.

On 25 January 1994 (nine years after the date on which she had filed the action) the court stayed the proceedings, finding that the applicant had not formulated the statement of claim with precision. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.

On 28 July 1994 the applicant specified her claim. She stated that it concerned the reimbursement for the construction works carried out by her in order to improve the state of the house. The applicant further maintained her claim relating to the mortgage.

On 14 November 1994 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 25 January 1995 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the President of the Kraków Regional Court about delay in handling her application of 14 November 1994. In a letter of 22 February 1995 the Vice President of the Regional Court admitted that the applicant’s case had not been dealt with for six months despite the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be resumed. According to him, it was due to the fact that the judge rapporteur was ill and there was no judges to whom the pending cases could be assigned. He informed the applicant that he would supervise the course of the proceedings and apologised for the delay.

On 17 February 1995 the court resumed the proceedings.

The court held hearings on 27 March and 30 October 1995.

On 27 June 1995 the parties unsuccessfully tried to reach a friendly settlement.

On 28 October 1995 the applicant submitted a pleading to the court. She maintained her original claim as submitted on 18 September 1985. She also requested that certain evidence be admitted. On 30 October 1995 the court held a hearing.

On 10 October 1996 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. As a result, on 21 October 1996, the court adjourned a hearing. On 7 November 1996 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge. On 9 May 1997 the Kraków Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision.

On 7 May 1996 the co-operative filed an application for winding-up ( otwarcie likwidacji ) with the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). On 12 July 1997 the court refused to enter an amendment in the co-operative’s register about opening of the winding-up proceedings on account of the formal shortcomings of the application.

On 22 August, 18 September, 21 October and 24 November 1997 the court held hearings. Apparently, on some unknown date, the court also obtained expert evidence.

On 8 December 1997 the Kraków Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claims.

The applicant lodged an appeal on 9 February 1998.

On 9 October 1998 the Kraków Court of Appeal held a hearing. The court admitted evidence in order to verify the applicant’s submissions that the co-operative had asked for winding-up.

On 18 December 1998 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

On 12 March 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The proceedings in the Supreme Court are pending.

2. Proceedings concerning the annulment of the resolution

(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 9 May 1990 the applicant filed an action with the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court, seeking that the defendant’s resolution divesting her of the membership in the co-operative be annulled. The applicant was represented by a lawyer. On 18 June 1990 the co-operative submitted its pleading to the court.

The court held a hearing on 18 September 1990. On 26 November 1990 it stayed the proceedings as it considered that their determination depended on the outcome of the proceedings concerning the action for damages (described above). On 20 March 1991 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings.

(b) Facts after 1 May 1993

On 27 June 1993 the applicant asked the President of the Kraków Regional Court to resume the proceedings. On 6 July 1993 he replied that he was not competent to make procedural decisions in the proceedings.

On 28 December 1993 the applicant asked the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court to resume the proceedings. On 30 December 1993 the court refused her request, referring to the reasons given in the decision of 26 November 1990. On 31 May 1994 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

On 18 June 1997 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that three years had passed since the date on which the proceedings had been stayed and during this time no request to resume the proceedings was filed. On 1 July 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision. Apparently, on some later date, the Regional Court quashed it.

On 5 June 1998 the applicant requested to resume the proceedings. On 16 June 1998 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court rejected her request.

The proceedings are apparently stayed.

COMPLAINTS

In respect of both sets of the proceedings in which she has been involved, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about their length and unfairness.

THE LAW

1. In respect of both sets of the proceedings, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their length exceeded a “reasonable time”.

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

2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that those proceedings have been unfair.

However, the Court notes that the proceedings in question are still pending before the domestic courts and that, therefore, these complaints are premature.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints that the length of the proceedings concerning the action for damages and the length of the proceedings relating to the annulment of the resolution exceeded a “reasonable time” within a meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President