PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 72994/01) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms. H. Baranowska (“the applicant”) on 3 April 2001. The applicant was represented by Ms M. Heller-Kaczmarska, a lawyer practising in Poznań.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 7 October 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Poznań.

On 12 March 1987 the applicant lodged a motion with the Poznań District Court concerning the inheritance of her mother’s and her father’s estate.

On 25 April 1987 the Poznań District Court ordered two court files from other proceedings to be joined to the case.

On 22 March 1988 the Poznań District Court urged the competent court to submit these files.

On 6 April 1988 the above-mentioned order was complied with.

On 27 June 1988 the first hearing was held. As witnesses had not been summoned properly, the hearing was adjourned.

On 14 September 1989 the second hearing was held. As witnesses had not been called properly the hearing was again adjourned.

On 14 November 1989 the third hearing was held at which it was decided to appoint two experts.

On 8 March 1990 and 6 April 1992 the experts’ opinions were submitted to the court.

On 28 May 1992 the Poznań District Court issued a decision as to the entitlement to the inheritance. It ruled that the applicant was to inherit ¼ of her father’s estate and nothing from her mother’s. On 18 November 1993 the applicant requested the Minister of Justice to lodge an extraordinary appeal as to the part of the judgment concerning her mother’s estate.

On 27 September 1994 the Minister of Justice lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision of 28 May 1992 was in manifest breach of law.

On 27 October 1994 the Supreme Court partly quashed the contested decision and remitted the case to the Poznań District Court. In the course of the proceedings another expert opinion was admitted.

At the hearing held on 15 February 1995 the court granted the applicant partial exemption from court fees and appointed her a legal-aid lawyer.

Subsequent hearings were held on 19 May 1995, 21 June 1995, 1 September 1995 and 13 September 1995.

On 12 October 1995 the court conducted an inspection of the real estate.

At the hearing held on 3 November 1995 the court decided to impose a fine on a witness who had failed to appear.

A subsequent hearing was held on 6 December 1995.

On 19 January 1996 a hearing was held at which one of the parties did not appear. The court ordered him to submit a medical certificate and to appear at the next hearing.

The hearing held on 21 February 1996 was adjourned due to the absence of other parties to the proceedings. The court ordered them to submit medical certificates and to appear at the next hearing.

At the hearing held on 12 April 1996 one of the parties to the proceedings failed to appear and was ordered to appear at the hearing on pain of omission of her statements.

Another hearing was held on 16 May 1996.

On 21 June 1996 the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of a witness. The court imposed a fine on him.

On 10 July 1996 a hearing had to be adjourned since it appeared that one of the witness’ whereabouts was incorrect. Another party’s lawyer was ordered to submit relevant information within three days on pain of omission of that information as evidence.

The next hearing was held on 2 August 1996.

On 7 January 1997 an expert opinion was ordered. It was submitted on 6 March 1997.

On 11 March 1997 the court ordered a further expert opinion. It was submitted on 20 October 1997.

On 10 December 1997 a hearing was held.

On 30 January 1998 the Poznań District Court issued a decision. It ruled that the applicant was to inherit a part of her mother’s estate. The applicant and another party appealed on 28 April 1998 and 23 June 1998 respectively.

On 28 July 1998 a hearing was held before the appellate court.

On 2 October 1998 the Poznań Regional Court amended the decision, allowing the applicant’s appeal in part. On 23 December 1998 the opponent lodged a cassation appeal.

On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Court gave a judgment dismissing the cassation appeal.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 0

On 17 September 2004 the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki -“the 2004 Act”) entered into force. It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings. A party to pending proceedings may ask for the acceleration of those proceedings and/or just satisfaction for their unreasonable length under section 2 read in conjunction with section 5(1) of the 2004 Act.

On 18 January 2005 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) adopted a resolution (no. III SPP 113/04) in which it ruled that while the 2004 Law produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force (17 September 2004), its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date but only when they had not before that date but only when they had not yet been remedied.