FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 45751/10 Janina ZIAJA

against Poland lodged on 2 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Janina Ziaja , is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Golasowice .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Main proceedings

On 1 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court for the establishment of an easement.

By a decision of 11 July 2000 (file no. I Ns 57/99) the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court allowed the applicant ’ s claim. The other party appealed against this decision.

On 15 November 2000 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the first ‑ instance decision and remitted the case (file no. III Ca 661/00).

Having reconsidered the case, on 2 June 2005 the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court allowed, in essence, the applicant ’ s claim (file no. I Ns 57/99). The other party again appealed against the decision.

By a decision of 26 January 2006 (file no. III Ca 1322/05) the Gliwice Regional Court again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.

The proceedings appear to be still pending.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 9 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gliwice Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nie uzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act” ). She indicated that she had lodged her claim in 1999 and that her case still had not been examined. She further claimed PLN 10,000 in compensation.

By a decisio n of 21 December 2004 (file no. III S 36/04) the Gliwice Regional Court rejected the claim on formal grounds, having found that the applicant had not sought a finding that the proceedings had been excessive.

Subsequently, the applicant lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act. She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN 10,000 in compensation.

By a decision of 5 April 2006 (file no. III S 7/06) the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the claim. It analysed in detail the course of the proceedings and held that they had been generally conducted in a correct and timely manner.

COMPLAINT

The ap plicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in her case has been excessive.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remed ies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention ? In particular, in order to comply with the exhaustion requirement, should she have lodged a further complaint under Section 5 of the 2004 Act following her unsuccessful complaint dismissed by the Gliwice Regional Court on 5 April 2006 ?

2. Depending on the answer to question 1, was the length of the proceedings in the present case in compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ?