CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 juin 2003

.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 } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; 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 } .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 } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 49920/99 by Józef CWYL and Dariusz CWYL against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   June   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges ,, and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 1999, Having regard to the partial decision of 28 June 2001, 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 applicants are Polish nationals, who were born in 1936 and 1958 respectively and live in Brwinów, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 11 May 1989 the applicants filed with the Pruszków District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an action in which they claimed the payment by an enterprise Z.R.B. run by a local State authority of the agreed price for their transportation services. On 5 November 1990 the court awarded them the amount claimed. The defendant’s representative lodged an appeal. On 27 March 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. On 5 June 1991 the District Court summoned the Brwinów commune’s board ( zarząd miasta i gminy ), the self-governmental successor of the local State authority that had run enterprise Z.R.B., to take part in the proceedings as the defendant. The commune’s board refused to comply with the summons, submitting that the liquidator of enterprise Z.R.B. should be summoned. The applicants’ lawyer directed his further pleadings against a municipal enterprise M.P.G.K. which was the legal successor of Z.R.B. The court held a hearing on 2 October 1991. On 9 September 1991 M.P.G.K. was summoned to take part in the proceedings. On 20 May 1992 the court, at the applicants’ request, stayed the proceedings in order to identify the defendant. Subsequently, M.P.G.K. ceased to exist and the applicants’ lawyer stated that the Brwinów commune ( gmina ) should be considered its legal successor. The proceedings were resumed and the court held a hearing on 13   January 1994. At the hearing held on 8 April 1994 the applicants increased the claimed amount. The court held hearings on 18 January 1996 and 28 March 1997. At the latter hearing it imposed a fine on a witness who had failed to appear before it. On 1 September 1997 the applicants further increased the claimed amount, relying on the then existing prices of the transportation services. On 4 November 1998, in reply to the applicants’ complaint, the President of the Warsaw Regional Court admitted that the proceedings were lengthy and informed that they had been taken under his and the President of the Pruszków District Court’s administrative supervision. The court held a hearing on 30 December 1998. It adjourned the hearing scheduled for 17 February 1999 because of the lawyer of the defendant’s failure to attend. The court held a further hearing on 5 May 1999. On 14 July 1999 the commune proposed a friendly settlement, but the applicants did not accept its conditions. On 20 July 1999 the court held a hearing. On 2 August 1999 it gave judgment. The court awarded the applicants the amount claimed by them. It noted that the applicants could have claimed more, but since it was bound by their statement of claim, it could not award more than they had indicated there. They appealed. On 7 April 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed their appeal. Subsequently, the applicants requested the Ombudsman and the Ministry of Justice to lodge a cassation appeal on their behalf, but to no avail. THE LAW The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 11 May 1989 and ended on 7 April 2000. They therefore lasted 10   years, 10 months and 27 days, out of which the period of 6 years, 11   months and 6 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis , Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993. According to the applicants, 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 applicants’ 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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President