PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 52074/99) 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, Stefan Wiatrzyk (“the applicant”), on 28 April 1999.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr K. Drzewicki and subsequently Ms S. Jaczewska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that the labour law proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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

By a decision of 8 July 2003 the Court declared the application admissible.

The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

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).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Miedźno, Poland.

In October 1991 the applicant was dismissed from work.

On 21 October 1991 he filed with the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which he requested that he be reinstated in his former post and awarded compensation.

On 18 May 1992 the court stayed the proceedings until the completion of criminal proceedings against the applicant, considering that the courts’ findings in those proceedings could affect the outcome of the employment dispute.

On 31 July 1992 the criminal court gave judgment. On 27 November 1992 the second-instance court quashed it and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 22 May 1995 the District Court discontinued the labour law proceedings, because three years had passed since the date of staying them.

On 25 July 1995 it allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed that decision.

On 3 November 1995 the criminal court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, considering that the theft of two boxes of glue committed by him was of an insignificant nature. On 23 February 1996 the second-instance court acquitted the applicant.

On 15 May 1996 the Częstochowa District Court gave judgment in respect of part of his claim. It reinstated the applicant in his former post. On 6 August 1996 the second-instance court dismissed his employer’s appeal against that judgment.

On 4 March 1997 the Częstochowa District Court ordered an expert opinion concerning the calculation of the applicant’s lost earnings. It was submitted on 26 August 1997. In September 1997 the court ordered a supplementary opinion.

At the hearing held on 14 January 1998 it requested the preparation of another supplementary opinion. It was submitted on 16 June 1998.

The court held a hearing on 5 February 1999. Subsequently, the parties exchanged their observations as to the amount of compensation for the applicant.

On 15 February 2000 the court held a hearing. On 20 April 2000 it ordered a supplementary expert opinion.

On 26 September and 14 November 2000 the court held hearings. On the former date it refused the applicant’s request for an interim order.

On 28 December 2000 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant compensation for the lost earnings. Both parties appealed.

On 16 May 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing.

On 31 May 2001 it dismissed a challenge to the participation in the proceedings of a judge lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. The court imposed a fine on the lawyer for having used that remedy in bad faith.

On 13 June 2001 the court dismissed both appeals against the judgment of the District Court. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

On 19 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s appeal.