PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PAVLOVSCHI

I agree with the majority that there has been no breach of Article 13 in the present case. At the same time I find it difficult to share the view that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

I consider that the existence of a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the case before us is self-evident.

Let me briefly present my view of the situation.

The period to be taken into consideration was six years and nearly five months (see paragraph 54 of the judgment)

From the circumstances of the case many different periods of delays can be identified:

– from 13 March to 27 June 1996 – three and a half months (see paragraph 13);

– from 24 July to 4 November 1996 – three months (see paragraph 14);

– from 26 January to 17 July 1997 – five and a half months (see paragraphs 15 and 16);

– from 17 July to 29 October 1997 – three and a half months (see paragraphs 16 and 17);

– from 29 October 1997 to 31 March 1998 – five months (see paragraphs 17 and 18);

– from 19 November 1998 to 18 May 1999 – six months (see paragraphs 21 and 22);

– from 30 September 1999 to 20 February 2000 – five months (see paragraphs 23 and 24);

– from 16 May 2000 to 12 October 2000 – five months (see paragraph 26);

– from 22 February 2002 to 20 June 2002 – four months (see paragraphs 32 and 33).

The total delay was therefore more than three years and four months.

In my view, the fact that these delays accounted for more than three years and four months out of the overall length of proceedings of six and a half years is inconsistent with the finding that “ ... the authorities displayed due diligence in handling the applicant ’ s case ... ” ( see paragraph 57 of the judgment ) .

With all due respect to the position taken by the majority, I think that the length of proceedings in the present case cannot be considered reasonable and both the overall length of the proceedings and the periods of delay were incompatible with the “reasonable length of proceedings” requirement.

This conclusion becomes even clearer if one compares the length of the proceedings which occurred in the present case with the lengths of proceedings in other cases against Poland where violations of Article 6 § 1 were found.

Let me mention just a few examples:

– case of Krzak v. Poland (application no. 51515/99) – length of proceedings : 5 years and 8 months – violation found;

– case of Krzewicki v. Poland (application no. 37770/97) – overall length of proceedings: 4 years and 7 months, out of which 3 years and 10 months within the Court ’ s jurisdiction – violation found;

– case of Guzicka v. Poland (application no. 55383/00) – length of proceedings: 4 years and 9 months – violation found;

– case of Irena Pieniazek v. Poland (application no. 62179/00) – length of proceedings: 3 years and 6 months – violation found,

– case of Romanow (Barańska) v. Poland (application no. 45299/99) – length of proceedings : 4 years and 8 months – violation found.

All the judgments in the above-mentioned cases are final and binding.

And this list could be continued.

All these reasons and arguments lead me to the conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.

[1] 1. As rendered in the official translation made for the Bureau of Research of the Lower House of the Polish Parliament ( Sejm ).