CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 octobre 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 } .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 } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sFC77BA53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s5B5DE7F7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.45pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F3DC0D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s10F9E4BE { width:199.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 51429/99 by Janusz PAŚNICKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   October 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 1999, and registered on 30 September 1999, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Janusz Paśnicki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Kamień Pomorski, Poland. He is represented before the Court by Mr Zieliński, a lawyer practising in Szczecin, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Facts that took place before 1 May 1993 The applicant was a manager of the Kamień Pomorski health resort. On   14   May 1990 he filed an action with the Szczecin Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), in which he requested that a certain Mr A.P. (“the defendant”), who worked for the resort, be ordered to stop spreading information damaging to the good name of the applicant and to retract in the press his defamatory statements. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 2 July and 5 September 1990. On 3 October 1990 the court held a hearing. It heard a witness and decided to stay the proceedings until the completion of proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal from the position of manager. On 27 December 1991 the dismissal proceedings were terminated. On 30 January 1992 the applicant requested the court to resume the defamation proceedings. On 7 December 1992 the trial court resumed the proceedings. On 5 March 1993 the court adjourned a hearing, because of the lack of the defendant’s pleadings in the case file. B.     Facts that took place after 30 April 1993 On 11 August 1993 the applicant extended his claim. On 21 October 1994 the court held a hearing. On 6 December 1995 the court adjourned a hearing at the defendant’s request. On 24 January 1996 the court closed the examination of the case and announced that the judgment would be delivered on 7 February 1996. On 6 February 1996 the court reopened the examination of the case and decided that the defendant would be heard in Kamień Pomorski. On 19   February 1996 the court heard the defendant. On 28 February 1996 the Szczecin Regional Court gave judgment. It ordered the defendant to retract his statements concerning the applicant in certain newspapers at his own expense. On 8 August 1996 the applicant received a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the defendant lodged an appeal against that judgment. On 12 November 1996 the Poznań Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) held a hearing and on 21 November 1996 it gave judgment. The court quashed the judgment of the Szczecin Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination. Despite numerous complaints by the applicant and his lawyer, the Szczecin Regional Court listed no hearing until 12 May 1999. On 12   January 1999 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. In a reply of 27   January 1999, the President of the Regional Court admitted that the complaint was justified. On 12 May 1999 the court held a hearing. On 28 June 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing. It heard the applicant and adjourned the examination of the case for the purpose of hearing the defendant before the Kamień Pomorski District Court. The defendant was heard on 25 August 2000. The next hearing was listed for 29 December 2000. The court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the judgment would be delivered on 12 January 2001. On 26 January 2001 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. He appealed against the judgment. It appears that the proceedings are pending. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 14 May 1990 in the Szczecin Regional Court and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted 12 years and 5 months, out of which the period of 9 years, 5 months and 2 weeks falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President