CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7A69B6 { width:19.2pt; display:inline-block } .s228AD07D { width:205.79pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 47402/99 by Irena ZAWADZKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   June 2001 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 on 12 November 1998 and registered on 13 April 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1936 and living in Bydgoszcz, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In February 1986 the applicant got divorced. In June 1987 she filed with the Bydgoszcz District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a petition in which she sought the division of the spouses’ property. In 1988 and 1989 the court ordered expert opinions. On 3 June 1992 it refused a request that the shares in the property be unequal. On 28 May 1993 the court declined the applicant’s petition to challenge a judge. Her appeal against that decision was subsequently rejected. On 9 June 1993, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) informed her that due to the excessive length of the proceedings they had been taken under his administrative supervision. In October 1993 the parties to the proceedings requested that certain further expert opinions be ordered. On 8 June 1994 the court gave a partial judgment. On 1 December 1994 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. On 23 September 1997 the court gave judgment. In the reasoning it pointed out that the applicant on several occasions had changed her claims. She appealed against that judgment. On 9 July 1998 the parties reached a friendly settlement before the Bydgoszcz Regional Court in respect of a part of the District Court’s judgment. In respect of the remainder the applicant withdrew her appeal. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. 2. She further complains that the domestic courts failed to examine certain claims raised by her in the proceedings before them. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly unreasonable 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 complains about the courts’ alleged failure to examine her claims. The Court observes that the applicant reached a friendly settlement in respect of a part of her claims and withdrew her appeal against the judgment of the Bydgoszcz District Court in respect of the remainder. Therefore, domestic remedies have not been exhausted, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and the complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about [Note1] the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President [Note1]   Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.