BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 16573/10
Jolanta and Leon KUS
against Poland

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Jolanta Kus and Mr. Leon Kus, are Polish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1962 respectively and live in Lubliniec. Their application was lodged on 17 March 2010.

The circumstances of the case

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

1.  Main proceedings (case nos. I Ns 363/96, I Ca 694/99, VI Ca 209/08)

On 23 September 1996 the applicants instituted civil proceedings for the division of co-ownership.

On 27 May 1999 the Lublilniec District Court gave its decision. The applicants appealed against the decision.

On 28 December 1999 the Czestochowa Regional Court quashed the decision.

On 31 December 2007 the Lubliniec District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstepne). The applicants appealed against the decision.

On 13 May 2008 the Czestochowa Regional Court partly amended the decision of 31 December 2007.

The proceedings appear to be still pending.

2.  Proceedings under the 2004 Act (case no. S 7/05)

On 13 April 2005 the second applicant, Mr. Leon Kus, lodged a complaint under 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 postepowaniu sadowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwloki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed compensation of PLN 10,000.

By a decision of 12 May 2005 the Czestochowa Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court took note of the fact that the length of the proceedings complained of covered mostly the period prior to 17 September 2004, i.e. the date on which the 2004 Act had entered into force. In this connection, the court held that prior to that date the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner and that the length of the proceedings had been largely due to the conduct of the parties, in particular to their disagreement and exchange of correspondence on certain points concerning the case. The court concluded, invoking the relevant case-law of the Supreme Court, that the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as excessive within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the 2004 Act.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in their case has been excessive.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants exhausted all domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in order to comply with the exhaustion requirement, should they have lodged a further complaint under Section 5 of the 2004 Act following their unsuccessful complaint dismissed by the Czestochowa Regional Court on 12 May 2005 ?

2.  In the affirmative, was the length of the proceedings in the present case in compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?