FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 52518/99 by Zygmunt KORAL 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 , [Note1]

and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 11 May 1999 and registered on 9 November 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1918 and living in Kraków , Poland.

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

On 28 May 1971 the Chrzanów District Court ( Sąd Powiatowy ) gave a decision ( postanowienie ) declaring that, under the will of M.H. (the applicant’s mother-in-law), her property be inherited by her three daughters Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.K. (the applicant’s wife) and by her granddaughter ( M.S. ).

On 30 June 1977 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) declared that the applicant had inherited the property of his late wife.

(a) Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 15 October 1977 Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.S. (“the petitioners”) applied to the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) requesting that the inheritance left by late M.H. be divided. The inheritance consisted of three plots of land and a house and had so far been held in individual shares. The applicant was a party to these proceedings as a successor to his wife ( M.H.’s daughter).

On 30 June 1978 the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. In September 1978 the expert submitted his report to the court. On 30 May 1979 the court gave a decision ( postanowienie ) distributing the inheritance.

On 16 November 1979, on the applicant’s appeal, the Kraków Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) partly amended the first-instance decision.

On 3 October 1980, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) set aside the decision of the Kraków Regional Court and the decision of the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court, and remitted the case to the court of first instance.

It appears that on unspecified dates in 1985 and in 1986 the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court gave decisions dividing the inheritance but they were subsequently set aside on appeal. In the course of the proceedings the court held a number of hearings and obtained six expert reports. It also held five viewings of the site.

On 26 October 1988 the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court gave a decision and granted the property to S.Z. (the grandson of the applicant’s mother-in-law). The court ordered S.Z. to pay a certain reimbursement to the applicant for his share and ordered that all the petitioners pay off the expenses incurred by the applicant for the maintenance of the property in question. Lastly, the court ordered that the applicant surrender the property into S.Z.’s possession within two months.

On 3 February 1989 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision.

On 14 September 1989, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court partly quashed the decisions of the first- and the second-instance courts, and remitted the case to the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court, ordering that court to determine the amount of the reimbursement to be paid to the applicant.

After that date the court obtained two extra expert reports.

On an unspecified date other petitioners joined the proceedings.

(b) Facts after 1 May 1993

On 19 May 1997 the Kraków-Krowodrze District Court ordered that further expert evidence be obtained in order to determine the market value of the property (taking as the starting point 26 October 1988, the date on which the court had granted the property to S.Z.). On 12 June 1997 the court held a viewing of the site. On 27 June 1997 the expert submitted his report to the court.

On 25 September 1997 the court gave a ruling and ordered S.Z. to pay a certain sum to the applicant for his share (determined in accordance with the market value of the property in question). It dismissed the applicant’s claim for the maintenance expenses and for the house to be divided because these issues had already been decided in the decision of 26 October 1988 ( res iudicata ). The court referred to the expert report of 27 June 1997 which had determined the market value of the property.

S.Z. and the applicant lodged appeals against this decision. On 8 April 1998 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed both appeals.

Subsequently, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. That appeal was dismissed on 9 December 1998.

COMPLAINTS

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

2. He submits that the proceedings were unfair in that the courts wrongly determined the amount of the reimbursement to be paid to him and unjustifiably dismissed his claim for payment of the maintenance expenses. The applicant further submits that the relevant judicial decisions did not reflect the market value of the property and alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the 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 submits that the proceedings were unfair in that the courts wrongly determined the amount of the reimbursement to be paid to him and unjustifiably dismissed his claim for payment of the maintenance expenses. The applicant further submits that the relevant judicial decisions were not based on the market value of the property and alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court notes at the outset that, in so far as the applicant complains about 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, 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.

In respect of the events which took place after 1 May 1993, the Court observes 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).

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

It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded 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 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

[Note1] Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK ( Shift+Enter ). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)