FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 39505/98 by W.M. against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 11 July 2000 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 27 August 1997 and registered on 23 January 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 1950 and residing in Warsaw.

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

On 18 May 1992 he filed with the Warsaw District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) an action in which he sought the eviction of a tenant from an apartment situated in a house belonging to him. In addition, the applicant requested that the tenant pay overdue rent and be also evicted from the basement of the building.

Having held two hearings, on 9 October 1992 and 5 February 1993, the Warsaw District Court delivered its judgment on 11 February 1993. It ruled that the tenant should pay the overdue rent and be evicted from the basement, but dismissed the action for eviction from the apartment.

On unspecified dates the applicant and the defendant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) appeals against that judgment.

On 19 October 1993 a hearing was adjourned because of an illness of the judge rapporteur .

On 26 November 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing and pronounced a judgment in which it quashed the judgment of 11 February 1993 and remitted the case for re-examination. The court found serious shortcomings in the assessment of evidence by the first-instance court and errors of law.

Between 26 November 1993 and 27 November 1995 no hearing was held.

Between 27 November 1995 and 3 June 1998 the Warsaw District Court scheduled nineteen hearings, two of which were adjourned. One of the adjournments resulted from an illness of the judge rapporteur .

On 3 and 17 June 1998 the court adjourned the delivery of its judgment.

On 1 July 1998 the court decided to re-open the examination of the case and ordered an expert opinion.

On 6 July 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint against its decision of 17 June 1998, considering that there was no remedy against that decision.

On  25 January 1999 a summons for a hearing was served on the applicant, but, as the hearing was supposed to take place on 29 January 1999, he requested that it be rescheduled.

On 23 June 1999 the court adjourned the delivery of its judgment until 7 July 1999.

On 2 August 1999 the Warsaw District Court delivered a partial judgment. It ordered the eviction of the defendant from the basement and dismissed the claim concerning the eviction from the apartment.

The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. He also submits that the proceedings in question were not fair in the meaning of Article 6 § 1, because the courts dealing with his case committed several errors of fact and law and were not impartial.

THE LAW

The applicant complains about the unreasonable length and the unfairness of the proceedings. Article 6 § 1 provides, in so far as relevant :

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a              fair ... hearing within a reasonable time...”

a) The Court notes that the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims are still pending before the domestic courts, before whom he can raise, at least in substance, the complaint about the unfairness, which he is now putting before the Court. His complaint is therefore premature and must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded at this stage, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

b) The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the present state of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President