CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 juin 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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5B974CF2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; 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. 50424/99 by Maria and Marian KUSIAK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   June 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi , judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 23 December 1998, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Marian Kusiak and Maria Kusiak, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1940 and 1945 respectively and live in Ołtarzew, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Facts prior to 1 May 1993 It appears that the proceedings concerning delimitation of the plots of land started in 1982. On 22 September 1982 the Pruszkόw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) gave a decision ( postanowienie ). The applicants appealed. On 9 December 1982 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewόdzki ) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case. Following the remission of the case, the Pruszkόw District Court held a number of hearings and ordered that several expert reports be prepared. On 30 September 1985 the Pruszkόw District Court gave a decision. It appears that on the applicants’ appeal the Warsaw Regional Court again set aside the decision and remitted the case for re-examination. B.     Facts after 30 April 1993 The Pruszkόw District Court proceed to obtain evidence and held hearings on the following dates: 29 September, 18 November, 28 December 1993, 1 February, 4 March, 25 March and 20 April 1994. On 31 May 1994 the court inspected the site. The next hearing was held on 21 October 1994. On 29 March 1995 the trial court held a hearing and stayed the proceedings because M.K., a party to the proceedings, had died. The applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 5 January 1996 the court refused to resume the proceedings. On 20 March 1996 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice about the delay in the proceedings. On an unspecified date their complaints were referred to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court, who replied thereto on 4 July 1996. He acknowledged that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and promised to supervise their conduct. On 18 June 1996, on the applicants’ appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court amended the decision of 5 January 1996 and resumed the proceedings. Subsequently, the Pruszkόw District Court held hearings on the following dates: 9 December 1996, 4 September, 21 October and 3   December 1997. On 1 June 1999 the court delivered a supplementary expert report and ordered the parties to submit their observations on it. On 19 November 1999 the court gave a decision and ordered M.G. to join the proceedings. On 18 February 2000 the applicants again complained to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. It appears that on 23 May 2001 the court stayed the proceedings. The applicants appealed. On 19 September 2001, in reply to the applicants’ complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Minister of Justice admitted that there was a certain delay in the proceedings. He further observed that the President of the Warsaw Regional Court and the President of the Pruszkόw District Court had supervised the conduct of the proceedings and had made reports on their progress. It appears that the proceedings are still stayed and, therefore, pending. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicants complain under Article 6 §1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. 2. The applicants also complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings. THE LAW 1.     The applicants complain under 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. 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 Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     The applicants also complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings. The Court notes that insofar as the applicants complain about the events which took place before 1 May 1993, the date on which the Poland’s declaration recognising the right of individual petition took effect, this part of the application is inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. In respect of the events which took place after 30 April 1993, 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 manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint that the length of the proceedings in their case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President