PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 46034/99) against the Republic of Poland lodged on 30 January 1998 with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Polish nationals, Danuta Gryziecka and Henryk Gryziecki (“the applicants”).

The applicants were represented by Mrs Koczorowska, a lawyer practising in Szczecin, Poland. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicants alleged that their right to a “hearing within a reasonable time” had not been respected.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).

By a decision of 10 January 2002 the Court declared the application admissible.

THE FACTS

The applicants, Danuta Gryziecka (“the first applicant”) and Henryk Gryziecki (“the second applicant”), were born in 1950 and 1949 respectively, and live in Niedźwiedź, Poland.

On 31 August 1981 J.P. (“the plaintiff”) sued the applicants in the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) seeking repayment of the money he had invested in the applicants’ hen house.

On 11 September 1981 the case was transferred to the Stargard Szczeciński District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) as the court competent to decide it.

On 11 November 1981 the applicants filed their pleadings with the court. They acknowledged the plaintiff’s claim in respect of 728,000 old Polish zlotys.

On 17 March 1982 the court stayed the proceedings because the plaintiff had not complied with a certain court order. On 30 September 1982 the plaintiff’s lawyer requested to resume the proceedings. On 7 March 1983 the court resumed the proceedings.

On 22 March 1983 the court held the first hearing. Subsequently, from that date to 9 February 1989 the court held approximately nine hearings. In the meantime the plaintiff had modified his claim.

On an unknown date in 1984 the applicants transferred the sum of 728,000 old Polish zlotys to the plaintiff’s account.

In July 1984 the plaintiff died. Subsequently, his wife and daughter (“the plaintiffs”) joined the proceedings as his legal successors.

On 9 February 1989 the court held a hearing. The witness did not appear. The court decided to obtain evidence from a bank.

On an unknown date in 1989 the plaintiffs modified their claim.

From that date to 9 November 1992 the court held a number of hearings. It obtained three expert reports, held one view of the site and heard some witnesses. The plaintiffs again modified their claim.

On 9 November 1992 the court decided to obtain fresh expert evidence in order to determine the value of certain construction works made by the second applicant. The expert report was submitted to the court on 22 December 1992.

On 27 May 1993 the expert report was served on the applicants’ lawyer. On 3 June 1993 the applicants submitted their observations on it. On 19 April 1994 the plaintiffs asked the court to set a date for a hearing.

On 7 July and on 11 August 1994 respectively the court ordered the parties to produce the evidence in support of their submissions.

On 19 May 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from certain witnesses. It also ordered the plaintiffs’ lawyer to specify their claim and to produce the marriage certificate of the late plaintiff. On 5 April 1996 the plaintiffs specified the value of the claim.

On 10 and on 21 May 1996 respectively, the plaintiffs requested the court to list a hearing. In the meantime, the case had been assigned to a new judge.

On 20 August 1996 the court decided that fresh expert evidence be obtained, in order to determine the value of the land on which the hen house had been constructed. On 12 November 1996 the expert report was submitted to the court. On 11 December 1996 it was served on the applicants. On 27 December 1996 they submitted their observations on the report.

On 14 January 1997 the plaintiffs’ lawyer requested the court to list a hearing. On 18 March 1997 the applicants filed their pleadings with the court.

On 24 March 1997 the court held a hearing. The applicants requested that the court index the repayment of their bank loan and the payment made to the original plaintiff in 1984. The applicants also requested to obtain documentary evidence from the land register. The court fixed a one-month time-limit for the parties to produce the evidence. Subsequently, the parties filed their pleadings with the court on 22 April 1997. On 22 May 1997 the applicants filed additional pleadings.

On 2 June and on 14 July 1997 respectively the court held hearings. On both occasions a certain witness did not appear before the court. The court fined him. On 16 September 1997 the plaintiffs again modified their claim.

On 17 September 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from one witness. The applicants requested the court to obtain expert evidence in order to determine an indexed value of the repayment of their bank loan and the payment made by the applicants in 1984.

In the meantime the case had been assigned to a new judge. Subsequently, on 22 January 1998 the court held a hearing.

On 12 March 1998 the court held a hearing. The plaintiffs withdrew their claims against the first applicant. The court closed the proceedings. It did not obtain any expert report even though the applicants had secured money for such a report.

On 26 March 1998 the court gave judgment. It partly granted the claim of the original plaintiff’s daughter against the second applicant and dismissed the claim of the original plaintiff’s wife. The court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant. None of the parties submitted a notice of appeal.