PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 48001/99) 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, Stanisław Goc (“the applicant”), on 6 July 1998. The applicant having died on 2 December 2000, the Court accepted that his son, T.G., was entitled to pursue the application.

The applicant was not represented before the Court. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his right to a “hearing within a reasonable time” had not been respected.

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 of the Rules of Court.

By a decision of 23 October 2001 the Chamber of the Fourth Section declared the application admissible.

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

The applicant was born in 1904 and lived in Warsaw. He was the co-owner of a plot of land and a house in Warsaw.

On 23 September 1980 G.G., one of the co-owners (“the petitioner”) filed with the Warsaw-Praga District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of the property.

On 2 August 1984 the District Court gave a decision and divided the property. On 21 January 1985, on the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court.

On 24 September 1986, at the request of the petitioner, the District Court issued an interim order enjoining third parties from entering the attic of the house. On 27 May 1988 the court issued another interim order enjoining the applicant and his wife from carrying out any work to the house. On 24 November 1989 the court rejected another request of the petitioner for an interim order.

Having obtained a number of expert reports, the District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) on 22 December 1989. It determined that the house in question consisted of two apartments, basements and an attic. On 9 July 1990, on the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed this decision.

On 24 December 1990 the applicant filed with the District Court an application for permission to carry out works on the gas supply to his apartment. On 8 March 1991 the court decided to join his application to the merits of the proceedings concerning the division of the property. On 7 June 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 March 1991 as inadmissible in law.

On 4 March 1992 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for an interim order authorising works to be carried out on the attic of the house. On 10 June 1992 the Regional Court upheld this decision.

It appears that on an unspecified date in 1993 the District Court decided to carry out an inspection of the property. In April 1993 the parties paid an advance fee towards the costs of the inspection, as ordered by the court. By a letter of 8 April 1994 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that although the date of the inspection had been fixed on two occasions (for 14 October 1993 and 24 March 1994), it had not taken place since the representatives of the court had not turned up at the site. On 29 April 1994 the court rejected the applicant’s request to inspect the property. On 27 May 1994 the applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the District Court as being inadmissible in law.

On 29 April 1994 the District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Institute of Construction Technology (Instytut Techniki Budowlanej). As from 2 February 1995 the case file was with the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal against an unspecified decision (procedural order) of the District Court. On 20 March 1995 the Regional Court upheld the decision. On 27 April 1995 the case file was returned to the District Court.

On 4 May 1995 the District Court requested the Director of the Institute of Construction Technology to appoint an expert to take charge of the preparation of the report ordered by the court. On 8 June 1995 the case file was sent to the Institute of Construction Technology in order to have the report prepared within a two-month period. On 16 August 1995 the District Court requested the Institute to expedite the preparation of the report. On 22 November 1995 the court received the expert report and served copies on the parties.

In December 1995 the applicant submitted to the District Court his observations on the expert report. On 22 December 1995 and 20 February 1996 B.G., one of the co-owners, submitted her observations on the expert report. On 15 March 1996 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court.

On 20 March 1996 the applicant again filed with the District Court an application for permission to carry out works on the gas supply to his apartment.

On 9 April 1996 the District Court held a hearing. On 20 April 1996 G.G. and B.G. (the co-owners) submitted their pleadings to the court. On 29 October 1996 the District Court held a hearing.

On 21 November 1996 the applicant requested that B.G. and G.G. be ordered to inform the court about their position on his request of 20 March 1996 for permission to carry out works on the gas supply to his apartment.

On 3 February 1997 B.G. and G.G. requested the District Court to adjourn the proceedings on account of B.G.’s poor state of health. They also informed the court that they objected to any works being carried out to the house by the applicant.

On 4 February 1997 the District Court stayed the proceedings because it could not establish the address of D.B., one of the parties to the proceedings. The proceedings were resumed on 6 October 1997.

On 16 December 1997 the District Court again stayed the proceedings because B.G. had died on 3 October 1997.

On 16 September 1999 the applicant submitted to the District Court information about B.G.’s sole heir and requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 17 November 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s request. On 8 February 2000 the Regional Court upheld that decision.

On 10 March 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested the District Court to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of the estate of the late B.G. On 30 August 2000 the court appointed G.G., the petitioner, as guardian of the estate.

On 2 December 2000 the applicant died at the age of ninety-six. On an unknown date in 2001 the Warsaw-Praga District Court ruled that the applicant’s sons, T.G. and E.G., were the heirs to his estate. Consequently, T.G. and E.G. took the place of the applicant in the proceedings. Later, the lawyer of T.G. requested the court to resume the proceedings. On 23 October 2001 T.G’s lawyer requested the President of the Civil Division of the District Court to expedite the proceedings.

It appears that the proceedings are still stayed and, therefore, remain pending before the Warsaw-Praga District Court.