FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 48001/99 by Stanisław GOC against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 6 July 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress, President , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo, Mr L. Caflisch, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr V. Butkevych, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1]

and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 July 1998 and registered on 8 May 1999,

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 1904 and residing in Warsaw, Poland. He is a co-owner of a piece of land and a house in Warsaw.

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

1) Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 23 September 1980 one of the co-owners requested the Warsaw- Praga District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) to dissolve tenancy in common and divide shares in the property in question.

On 2 August 1984 the District Court gave judgment. On 21 January 1985, on the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the court of first instance.

On 24 September 1986 the court issued an interim order restricting the co-owners’ access to the part of the house possessed by the applicant. On 27 May 1988 the court issued an interim order enjoining the applicant and his wife from making any construction works in the house.

On 22 December 1989 the court gave a preliminary ruling. On 9 July 1990, on one of the co-owners’ appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the judgment.

On 4 March 1992 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for permission to carry out some construction works in the house. On 10 June 1992 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld this decision.

2) Facts after 1 May 1993

On an unspecified date the court decided to hold a view of the site. In a letter of 8 April 1994 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that the date of the view had twice been fixed but no judge had so far appeared. On 28 April 1994 the court quashed the decision to hold a view. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed as being inadmissible in law.

On an unspecified date the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 22 November 1995 it received an expert report and served copies thereof on the parties.

On 9 April 1996 the court held a hearing. On 16 December 1997 the court stayed the proceedings because one of the parties to the proceedings had died. On 17 November 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s request to resume the proceedings. On 8 February 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court confirmed that decision.

COMPLAINTS

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

2. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that in the course of the proceedings the court issued decisions interfering with his private and family life and his property rights.

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 the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.             

2. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention that in the course of the proceedings the court issued decisions interfering with his private and family life and his property rights.

However, the Court observes that the relevant proceedings are still pending and that, therefore, this complaint is 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 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.)