PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 52518/99) 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, Zygmunt Koral (“the applicant”), on 11 May 1999.

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

The applicant alleged that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time in breach 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 of the Rules of Court. On 12 December 2000 the Fourth Section decided to communicate the complaint about the length of the proceedings to the Government. On the same date the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The application was granted priority pursuant to Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1).This case was assigned to the newly composed Third Section .

By a decision of 10 January 2002 the Court declared the application admissible.

Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Fourth Section.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in Kraków, Poland.

On 28 May 1971 the Chrzanów District Court (Sąd Powiatowy) gave a decision (postanowienie) declaring that, under the will of M.H. (the applicant’s mother-in-law), her estate be inherited by her three daughters Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.K. (the applicant’s wife) and by her granddaughter (M.S.). On 30 June 1977 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant had inherited the estate of his late wife.

1. Facts prior to 1 May 1993

On 15 October 1977 Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.S. (“the petitioners”) filed with the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for distribution of the estate of M.H. The estate consisted of three plots of land and a house and had so far been held in individual shares. The applicant was a party to these proceedings as a successor to his wife.

On 30 May 1979 the Kraków District Court gave a decision (postanowienie) distributing the estate. Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 16 November 1979 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) partly amended the first-instance decision.

On 3 October 1980, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) set aside both above decisions and remitted the case to the court of first instance.

On 29 January 1985 the District Court gave a decision. On 11 September 1985 the Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case. On 16 June 1986 the District Court gave a subsequent decision. On 18 September 1987 the Regional Court set it aside.

On 26 October 1988 the District Court gave a decision. On 3 February 1989 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal against that decision.

On 14 September 1989, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court partly quashed the decisions of both lower courts, and remitted the case to the District Court. On 14 September 1989 the decision of the District Court of 26 October 1988, in respect of the manner in which the estate was distributed, became final. The subsequent proceedings concerned solely the amount of payments for the respective shares in the estate.

Prior to 1 May 1993 there were 38 hearings held in the case before the District Court, the Regional Court and the Supreme Court. During that period the courts dealing with the case heard evidence from at least fifteen witnesses and five experts. There were eleven expert reports submitted to the courts and five inspections of the site took place. On five occasions the applicant challenged the judges dealing with the case which resulted in a delay of approximately ten months. The proceedings were stayed on two occasions (on 23 May 1980 by the Supreme Court and on 13 July 1982 by the District Court) which resulted in a delay of approximately eleven months.

2. Facts after 30 April 1993

On 1 July 1993 the District Court ordered that a fresh report from expert R.L be obtained. On 15 September 1993 the applicant challenged that expert and requested the court to obtain an additional report from expert A.S.

On 11 October 1993 expert R.L. submitted his report to the District Court. There were certain difficulties in the preparation of that report which were caused by the parties. On 6 November 1993 the applicant again requested the court to obtain a report from another expert.

On 10 November 1993 the applicant challenged the presiding judge. On 18 November 1993 the District Court dismissed that challenge as unfounded.

On 30 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to issue an interim order and to enter a warning in the land register about the proceedings related to the estate.

On 1 December 1993 the petitioners submitted their observations on the expert report. On 10 January 1994 the applicant submitted his observations. He also requested the court to obtain a report from another expert. On 11 January 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court.

On 17 January 1994 the District Court held a hearing. It dismissed the applicant’s request of 30 November 1993. On 18 February 1994 the applicant asked the court to call a witness and submitted his further observations on the expert report.

On 10 March 1994 expert R.L. submitted to the court yet another report. On 21 April 1994 the petitioners submitted their observations on that report. In principle, they agreed with its conclusions but requested that a further supplementary report be prepared.

On 4 July 1994 the applicant requested the court to issue an interim order. The District Court set a hearing for 15 July 1994. It was adjourned to 9 September 1994 at the petitioners’ request. On 22 August 1994 the applicant challenged the presiding judge.

On 9 September 1994 the court held a hearing and heard the expert. On 21 September 1994 the court dismissed the applicant’s request of 4 July 1994. On 30 September 1994 the expert submitted his reply to the applicant’s observations on his report.

On 19 October 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision of 21 September 1994. On 5 December 1994 the applicant rectified procedural defects in his appeal and paid the fee due for lodging the appeal. On 22 December 1994 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 2 January 1995 the case file was received at the registry of the District Court.

On 28 April 1995 the applicant filed with the court his reply to the submissions of the expert of 30 September 1994. On 5 May 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from two witnesses and the expert R.L.

On 16 August 1995 the applicant asked the court to obtain a report from another expert. On 18 September 1995 the applicant asked the court to issue an interim order to secure his claims in the proceedings. On 22 September 1995 the court held a hearing. It refused the applicant’s request for an interim order and invited the parties to settle the case. On the same date, on the joint request of the parties, the court stayed the proceedings.

On 22 November 1995 the applicant asked the court that the proceedings be resumed as he disagreed with the amount of payment proposed to him by other petitioners (within the framework of the settlement). On 6 December 1995 the court refused.

On 17 January 1996 the applicant again asked the court – this time successfully – to resume the proceedings. On 16 February 1996 the court held a hearing. It heard evidence from two witnesses and imposed a fine on another witness who did not appear at the hearing. A hearing fixed for 22 March 1996 was adjourned at the petitioners’ request.

At the hearing held on 23 April 1996 the court heard evidence from one witness. The court gave all petitioners a time-limit of fourteen days for the submission of their proposals concerning re-evaluation of items included in the expert report.

On 6 May 1996 the applicant asked the court to obtain a report from another expert. The court granted that request and attempted to find an expert. Two experts refused to prepare a report. On some later unspecified date expert J.W. agreed to prepare a report.

On 11 February 1997 expert J.W. submitted his report to the court. On 14 April 1997 the petitioners contested the report.

On 29 April 1997 the court ordered expert J.W. to prepare a supplementary report, taking into account the market value of the estate. On 19 May 1997 the expert replied that he was not able to do so. On the same day the court ordered yet another expert, W.O., to prepare a report in order to determine the market value of the estate (taking as the starting point 26 October 1988, the date on which the court had decided to grant the estate to S.Z.).

On 12 June 1997 the court, in the presence of the expert and the petitioners, held a view of the estate. On 27 June 1997 the expert submitted his report. On 25 July 1997 the petitioners requested the court to reschedule a hearing fixed for 11 September 1997. On 29 July 1997 the court refused that request.

On 8 August 1997 the applicant submitted his observations on the expert report, in which he objected to its findings. On 27 August 1997 the applicant requested the court to summon expert J.W. in order to explain the differences in the value of the estate between the two expert reports.

On 11 September 1997 the court held a hearing. The court closed the examination of the case. On 12 September 1997 the applicant requested the court to obtain yet another expert report.

On 25 September 1997 the District Court gave a decision and ordered S.Z. to pay off the applicant’s share in the estate. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for the maintenance expenses and for the house to be divided because these issues had already been determined in the decision of 26 October 1988 (res iudicata). The court based its decision exclusively on the report of 27 June 1997 prepared by expert W.O., which assessed the market value of the estate. It regarded the reports prepared by experts A.S. and J.W. outdated. In respect of the report prepared by expert R.L. the court considered that it should not have been taken into account.

On 16 October 1997 the applicant appealed and asked the court to exempt him from a fee due for lodging an appeal. On 22 and 23 October the petitioners filed their appeals. On 25 November 1997 the District Court decided to exempt the applicant from the appeal fee.

On 17 December 1997 the case file was transferred to the Regional Court. On 18 December 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of two judges of that court. On 19 February 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing. It was adjourned until 3 April 1998 due to the absence of a witness. On the latter date the court heard evidence from a witness and expert W.O. The court closed examination of the case and adjourned delivery of a decision until 8 April 1998. On 7 April 1998 the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge of 18 December 1997. On 8 April 1998 the Regional Court dismissed both appeals.

On 9 April 1998 the applicant filed a notice of cassation appeal. On 19 May 1998 he requested the Regional Court to be exempted from a court fee due for lodging a cassation appeal. On 1 June 1998 the applicant lodged his cassation appeal. On 5 June 1998 the Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for exemption from the fee. On 10 June 1998 the applicant paid the fee himself.

On 9 December 1998 the Supreme Court heard, and dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.