PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 14580/02) 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 J. Wiercigroch (“the applicant”).

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

On 9 February 2006 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 1945 and lives in Bestwina.

On 18 April 1991 an action was brought before the Bielsko-Biała District Court in which certain claimants requested the determination of title to land. The applicant was one of the defendants in the proceedings. He requested the court to dismiss the action, claiming that he had title to the disputed land.

On an unknown date the court decided to adjourn a hearing until information from the land and mortgage register could be provided.

At a hearing of 27 October 1991 the court decided to conduct an on‑site inspection.

On 18 October 1991 the applicant requested the exclusion of the judge from the case. On 10 February 1992 the court refused the applicant’s request.

On 11 May 1992 the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed pending the completion of criminal proceedings instituted against his neighbours, who, according to the Government’s observations, had been charged with the offence of “distortion”.

A hearing fixed for 13 May 1992 was adjourned.

On 18 November 1992 the court refused to stay the proceedings.

On 28 May 1992 the applicant requested the judge’s exclusion from the case. On 6 November 1992 the court rejected the applicant’s request.

On an unknown date the applicant requested the exclusion of all judges on the bench from hearing the case. On 6 November 1992 the court rejected the applicant’s request.

At a hearing on 1 June 1993 the court ordered an expert opinion and an on-site inspection. The inspection was conducted on 16 June 1993 and the expert opinion was submitted on 20 December 1993.

At a hearing on 22 March 1994 the court requested the expert to supplement his opinion within a one-month time-limit.

The next hearing was adjourned owing to the failure of the expert to comply with the court order.

A hearing fixed for 24 May 1994 was adjourned and the claimant was ordered to submit further documentation.

On 31 August 1994 the court stayed the proceedings owing to the parties’ failure to comply with court orders.

On an unknown date the claimant requested the court to resume the proceedings. The court refused the claimant’s request as it had been lodged outside the time-limit.

On 15 December 1994 the court ordered another expert opinion. On 12 May 1995 the court decided to resume the proceedings and to conduct another on-site inspection.

On 1 June 1995 the applicant applied to the court to have seven more witnesses examined.

On 2 June 1995 an expert opinion was submitted.

At a hearing on 4 October 1995 the parties were ordered to submit further documentation.

On 10 October 1995 the Bielsko-Biała District Court gave a judgment by which it found that one of the claimants was the owner of the land in question. On 27 December 1995 the applicant appealed to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. On 16 February 1996 he requested the judge’s exclusion from the case. He also applied to the court to have another five witnesses examined.

On 26 February 1996 the court rejected the applicant’s requests.

On 12 March 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court quashed the judgment of 10 October 1995 and referred the case back.

On 5 June 1996 a hearing was held before the Bielsko-Biała District Court.

On 21 August 1996 the court conducted an on-site inspection.

On 22 August 1996 the proceedings were stayed as the claimant had died and his successors had to be identified.

On 21 January 1997 another hearing was held. Subsequently, the applicant requested the court to exclude the judge from the case; he also applied to the court to have additional witnesses examined.

On 17 February 1997 the court excluded the judge from the case.

Subsequent hearings were scheduled for 6 May 1997 (adjourned owing to the absence of all witnesses), 17 June 1996, 7 July 1997, 21 August 1997 (adjourned), 9 September 1997, 2 October 1997, 4 November 1997, 11 December 1997, 10 January 1998 and 10 February 1998.

On 24 February 1998 the Bielsko-Biała District Court gave a judgment by which it granted property rights over the disputed land to the claimant. On 8 April 1998 the applicant appealed.

On 11 August 1998 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 23 September 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. In his cassation appeal he contested inter alia the impartiality of the judges who had ruled on his case.

On 5 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. In particular, it did not find anything to suggest a lack of impartiality on the part of the judges.

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 yet been remedied.