CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 mai 2002

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s18215599 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s391DB599 { width:218.01pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 66096/01 by Ryszard ZYNGER against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste , judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 10 May 2000 and registered on 15 February 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ryszard Zynger, has a double Israeli-Polish nationality. He was born in 1922 and lives in Frankfurt. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1948 the applicant and his family were forced to leave Poland. His father appointed a representative to deal with all legal and financial matters in Poland and they went to Israel. Despite that representative’s opposition, the State authorities expropriated a part of the property of the applicant’s family. He could not take part in the proceedings concerning the expropriation, because the Polish authorities refused to grant him a visa to enter the territory of Poland. 1. Civil proceedings concerning the estate located in Łódź On 24 March 1998 the applicant filed with the Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) an action in which he claimed compensation for the allegedly unlawful use of his estate by the State Treasury. In December 1998 the Łódź District Office ( Urząd Rejonowy ) filed with the same court an action in which it sought declaration that the State Treasury had acquired the ownership of that estate on the basis of the 1946 decree on abandoned property ( dekret o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich ). The District Office submitted that the estate had been lost during the Second World War and in 1953 taken over by the State. It pointed out that until 1992 none of the previous owners had raised any claims in respect of that estate. In the proceedings concerning the applicant’s action the court held hearings on 19 February and 1 December 1999, as well as on 5 January 2000. On 23 February 2000 the Łódź Town Office ( Urząd Miasta ) requested that the proceedings be stayed until the proceedings initiated in December 1998 were completed, submitting that the outcome of those proceedings depended on the court’s findings in the latter. On 6 March 2000 the court stayed the proceedings. In his pleadings of 1 June 2000 the applicant’s lawyer submitted that after the war the applicant’s predecessor in title had resumed possession of the estate and in 1948 court proceedings concerning his title had been conducted. On 7 August 2000 the court stayed also the proceedings initiated in December 1998, relying on the fact that inheritance proceedings concerning one of the heirs to the estate in question were pending. The applicant’s lawyer appealed that decision, pointing out that the applicant’s share in the estate was 127/144 and thus the necessity to conduct those inheritance proceedings should not be the reason for staying the main proceedings. On 31 January 2002 the court gave judgment. The main proceedings have not to date been resumed. 2. Civil proceedings concerning the estate located in Katowice On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant filed with the Katowice District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a request to reopen the proceedings terminated in 1965 concerning his estate. In those proceedings the State Treasury acquired the ownership of the estate through prescription. The applicant alleged that the heirs to the estate had been deprived of the right to participate in those proceedings. He submitted that he had found out about that fact only in 1995. On 16 March 1999 the court refused the applicant’s request for an interim measure. His appeal against that decision was dismissed. On 10 February 2000 the court decided to transfer the case to its different department, considering that it should be dealt with in contentious procedure. In March 2000 the Katowice Town Office submitted its pleadings, in which it petitioned that the applicant’s request be rejected. It noted that the applicant had been aware of the fact that the proceedings concerning the acquisition of the estate had been pending. The Office further observed that the applicant had corresponded with the representative appointed by his family and thus could not claim that he had found out about the proceedings in 1995. On 27 October 2000 the court stayed the proceedings until inheritance proceedings in respect of one of the participants to the proceedings at issue are completed. On 31 January 2001 the Katowice Regional Court upheld that decision. The proceedings are still pending. 3. Administrative proceedings concerning the applicant’s estate located in Sosnowiec In June 2000 the applicant filed with the Silesia Governor ( Wojewoda Śląski ) a request for the annulment of an administrative decision issued in 1961, concerning the expropriation of an estate located in Sosnowiec. He submitted that he had not taken part in the expropriation proceedings. In the letter of 9 August 2000 the Governor’s Office informed the applicant that no decision dated 15 February 1961 was in the case-file indicated by him and requested further details in this connection. On 30 July 2001 the applicant replied to that letter. On 10 September 2001 the Silesia Governor informed the President of the Office for the Housing and Urban Development ( Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast ) that there were no grounds for the annulment of the challenged decision. No official decision has to date been issued. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case have exceeded a reasonable time. He further complains about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length of the civil law proceedings.   THE LAW 1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” (a) As regards the proceedings concerning the estates located in Łódź and Katowice, 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.     (b) As regards the proceedings concerning the applicant’s estate located in Sosnowiec, without prejudice to the issue as to whether Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to them, the Court observes that, in any event, the applicant has not lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity of the administrative organ dealing with his request. It follows that this part of the applicant’s complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.   2. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of the unreasonable length of the civil law proceedings.   Article 13 of the Convention provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 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.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings concerning the property located in Łódź and the proceedings concerning the property located in Katowice, as well as the complaint concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application. Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President