PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 11215/02) 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, Mr Stanisław Ratajczyk (“the applicant”), on 23 July 2001.

The applicant was represented by Ms Magdalena Filipowicz, a lawyer practising in Opole. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki and, subsequently, Mr Jakub Wołąsiewicz

The applicant alleged that the length of civil proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time.

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.

On 1 November 2004 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 31 May 2005 the Court declared the application partly admissible.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Namysłów.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 1 September 1992 the applicant signed a lease contract with a co‑operative. On 22 April 1993 the contract was terminated by the lessor and the applicant was barred from entering the leased premises.

On 21 July 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the co‑operative before the Kalisz Regional Court. He claimed that the lease contract had been terminated in breach of its provisions. He further alleged that as a result of the early termination he had suffered serious financial losses. He sought pecuniary damages and reimbursement of amounts he had paid in taxes in connection with the contract.

The first hearing in the case took place on 16 February 1994. The following two hearings were held on 12 June 1995 and 2 February 1996. An expert was appointed at the latter hearing. The first-instance judgment was given on 30 April 1997.

On 25 July 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the appellate court. On 13 November 1997 the Court of Appeal in Łódź quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the first-instance court had erred in the assessment of the evidence and that certain facts relevant for the outcome of the case required further clarification.

The Regional Court, having re-examined the case, dismissed the applicant’s action on 30 June 1998. The applicant appealed on 29 July 1998. On 13 January 1999 the Court of Appeal again quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination. It stated that the first-instance court had partly failed to assess the evidence which was crucial for the case.

No hearings were held throughout 1999.

On 14 January 2000, when the case was still pending before the Regional Court, the applicant extended his claim.

On 16 February 2000 the Regional Court informed him that as a result of bankruptcy proceedings concerning the defendant co-operative, a motion had been lodged with the competent bankruptcy court to strike it out of the commercial register. The court stated that the final judgment would be given on 28 February 2000. This information notwithstanding, the case was closed only on 20 December 2000, when the Kalisz Regional Court decided to discontinue the proceedings, considering that the defendant co‑operative had been declared bankrupt and had been liquidated.

The applicant appealed against the decision on 18 January 2001. On 3 April 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed it.

Parallel to these proceedings, the applicant tried to secure his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the co-operative. However, his request for the creation of a mortgage on a property of the co‑operative was dismissed on the ground that in the first set of the proceedings the applicant had not obtained any judgment enabling him to secure his claim.