PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 46004/99) against the Republic of Poland lodged 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 a Polish national, Zdzisław Sikorski (“the applicant”), on 6 August 1998.

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

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

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.

By a decision of 24 June 2003 the Court declared the application admissible.

The applicant 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 1935 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.

On 28 March 1991 Ms S. filed with the Oleśno District Court an action in which she sought the distribution of an inheritance and the dissolution of the co-ownership of the inherited property. The applicant was one of the heirs to that property.

The court held hearings on 15 May, 28 August and 14 November 1991, 29 January, 22 April, 27 May and 30 September 1992, 23 February and 7 June 1993, 28 March and 25 April 1994, 28 June 1995, 27 March and 7 August 1996, 6 January, 17 November and 11 December 1997, as well as 3 June and 22 June 1998.

On 4 March 1999 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant's lawyer.

Further hearings were held on 30 March, 23 April, 5 May, 11 May, 23 June, 14 July and 28 July 1999.

The hearing scheduled for 8 September 1999 was adjourned because of an illness of a court expert.

The court held hearings on 14 October and 30 December 1999, 17 January, 29 March, 20 April, 28 April, 18 May, 23 May and 16 June 2000.

On 20 June 2000, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Częstochowa Regional Court noted that the delay resulted from the complexity of the case, the parties' numerous requests concerning evidence and their petitions challenging expert opinions. She admitted that the court experts had failed to issue their opinions within the time-limits. The President considered that in one of such cases, in 1997, the court had failed to use disciplinary measures against the expert. She finally informed the applicant that she had instituted proceedings which could result in the dismissal of certain experts.

On 8 November 2000 the Oleśno District Court imposed a fine on an expert for his non-compliance with the time-limit for issuing his opinion.

On 10 January 2001 the court quashed its decision of 8 November 2000.

On the same day the court summoned certain individuals to participate in the proceedings.

On 20 February 2001 it stayed the proceedings because of the death of one of the participants. On 5 June 2001 the court resumed the examination of the case.

It held hearings on 6 July 2001 and 4 January 2002. The hearings scheduled for 15 February and 27 March 2002 were adjourned because of the absence of Ms S. Hearings were held on 29 May and 20 September 2002.

On 2 April 2003 the court served a copy of an expert opinion on the applicant for observations.

On 3 June 2003 the Oleśno District Court gave a judgment on the merits.

On 16 December 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed an appeal against that judgment.

By a decision of 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court declined to examine the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable public interest grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.