Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 23691/94

by W. K.

against Poland

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 September 1993

by W. K. against Poland and registered on 16 March 1994 under file

No. 23691/94;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1956, is an economist

residing in Brwinów, Poland.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows:

Particular circumstances of the case

1. Divorce proceedings

On 18 January 1989 the applicant lodged a petition for divorce

with the Warsaw District Court (S*d Rejonowy).

On 3 December 1990 the Warsaw District Court gave a judgment

dissolving the applicant's marriage. The right to custody of the

parties' daughter was awarded to his wife whereas the applicant was

granted access to the child. The court ordered the applicant to pay

child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 300,000 per month.

On 12 April 1991 the Warsaw Provincial Court (S*d Wojewódzki),

upon the applicant's appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first

instance.

2. Proceedings concerning defamation

As from the beginning of 1991 the applicant, in his numerous

claims, petitions and appeals, made statements which related personally

to several judges of the Warsaw courts. He described them as mentally

and emotionally unfit to dispense justice; he also alleged that they

had forged evidence.

On 5 February 1992 the Warsaw District Court convicted the

applicant of defamation of the judges concerned. The applicant

appealed against the above judgment.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy) ordered that the

appellate proceedings should be conducted before the Skierniewice

Provincial Court, since the defamation concerned certain judges of the

Warsaw Provincial Court.

In the meantime the applicant requested the Skierniewice

Provincial Court to take evidence confirming that he had been prompted

to issue the statements in question in view of the judges' prejudiced

attitude to his cases.

On 29 June 1993 the Skierniewice Provincial Court refused to take

the evidence requested and upheld the judgment of the court of first

instance.

3. Proceedings relating to child maintenance

On 19 June 1991 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant

to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 400,000 per month.

On 2 October 1991 the court ordered the applicant to pay child

maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 600,000 per month.

On 22 February 1992 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the

applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of 2 October 1991 and

dismissed the claim.

On 9 June 1993 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant

to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 600,000 per month.

On 1 February 1994, the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon both

parties' appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.

On 24 July 1996 the applicant's ex-wife requested the Warsaw

District Court to order him to pay child maintenance in the amount of

new PLZ 250 per month.

On 19 August and 19 December 1996 a hearing before the Warsaw

District Court took place. The proceedings are currently pending.

4. Proceedings concerning insult

On 2 October 1991 the applicant and two other members of the

Defence of Fathers' Rights Association put a board at the entrance to

the Warsaw courts. At the top of the board there was a headline:

"Criminals of Justice", followed by a list of the names of eight judges

of the Warsaw courts and three court experts, with the following

comments: "scoundrels", "shufflers", "provocateurs".

On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with publicly

insulting the persons concerned.

On 28 February 1992 the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator

Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court.

Subsequently, the case-file was transferred to the jurisdiction

of the Zyrardów District Court since the insult concerned judges of the

Warsaw courts.

On 13 November 1992 the Zyrardów District Court found the

applicant and his two co-defendants guilty although it decided to

discontinue criminal proceedings against them.

On 26 November 1992 the applicant appealed against the above

decision to the Skierniewice Provincial Court.

In the meantime, on an unspecified date, apparently after 1 May

1993, he requested the appellate court to stay proceedings since he had

been detained on remand on 27 April 1993 in the assault case.

5. Proceedings relating to permission to obtain a passport for the

child

Meanwhile, on 8 August 1991 the applicant's ex-wife requested the

Warsaw District Court to grant her permission to obtain a passport for

their daughter in view of the fact that the applicant had failed to

give his consent to the issue of a passport for the child.

On 27 April 1993 the Warsaw District Court granted the

permission. When the presiding judge was pronouncing the decision, the

applicant assaulted her. He was arrested in the court.

The applicant appealed against the decision of 27 April 1993.

On 12 October 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint challenging

the impartiality of all judges sitting in the Warsaw Provincial Court.

He requested in particular that the present case be transferred to

another province.

In the meantime, a group of ten judges of the Warsaw courts

requested the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny) to exempt them

from dealing with the applicant's cases. They submitted that the

applicant had insulted them in the past and that, in view of his

violent behaviour on 27 April 1993, they were not able to deal with his

cases.

On 21 November 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of

all judges sitting in the Warsaw Court of Appeal. In the meantime

these judges submitted declarations to the effect that there was no

personal or any other relation between them and the applicant or his

ex-wife which could prejudice them in the course of dealing with these

parties' cases.

On 31 January 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the

applicant's challenge of 21 November 1994.

On 1 June 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ruled on the

applicant's complaint of 12 October 1994. It held that the challenge

to the impartiality of the judges of the Warsaw Provincial Court was

ill-founded in view of the lack of any objective appearance of bias or

prejudice. The court also referred to the judges' request and held

that the interests of justice did not require them to be exempted from

dealing with the applicant's cases in the future.

On 23 November 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the

applicant's appeal, upheld the decision of the Warsaw District Court

of 27 April 1993.

6. Proceedings relating to the claim against the K company

On 27 February 1992 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation

with the Warsaw District Court requesting a payment of PLZ 100,000 from

the K company.

Meanwhile, on an unspecified date, the applicant's case was

transferred to the Warsaw Provincial Court because that court had

jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter.

On 16 July 1993 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the claim

since the applicant had not complied with formal requirements.

On 3 September 1993 the applicant appealed against the above

decision.

On 12 October 1993 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the

applicant's appeal as being lodged out of time.

On 2 November 1993 the applicant appealed against the above

decision. On the same day he requested the court to grant him

retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 16

July 1993. On 22 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to

grant him legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees.

On 26 January 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the

applicant partial exemption from court fees in respect of his appeal

against the decision of 12 October 1993.

On 4 March 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the

applicant's appeal against the decision of 12 October 1993 and held

that the issue of a possible grant of retrospective leave to appeal out

of time had to be examined separately by the Warsaw Provincial Court

following a hearing.

On 14 June 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the

applicant's request to grant him retrospective leave to appeal out of

time against the decision of 16 July 1993.

On 24 October 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the

applicant's appeal, quashed the above decision and referred the case

back to the court of first instance to establish all circumstances

concerning the reasons for which the applicant had not complied with

the time-limit.

On 31 May 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the applicant

retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 16 July 1993 and

ordered his appeal of 3 September 1993 to be referred to the Warsaw

Court of Appeal.

On 29 November 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the

applicant's appeal against the rejection of his claim as being

manifestly ill-founded.

7. Proceedings relating to the claim against the Minister of the

Interior

In 1992, on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim

against the Minister of the Interior with the Warsaw Provincial Court.

He claimed PLZ 20,000 in compensation for the fact that in 1986 certain

police officers had failed properly to conduct investigations against

persons who had assaulted him.

On 21 October 1992 the court, upon the applicant's request,

granted him legal assistance and exemption from court fees.

On 18 May 1993 the applicant increased the amount of the

compensation claimed to PLZ 50,000.

Further statements were filed by the parties on 24 May 1993 and

on 18 August 1993.

On 28 October 1993 a hearing took place. The applicant again

increased the amount of the compensation claimed, to PLZ 95,000, and

requested the court to take further evidence. On 28 December 1993 the

court held the next hearing.

On 2 February 1994 the applicant submitted a further statement.

He requested the court to take further evidence from witnesses,

documents and medical experts' reports.

On 30 March 1994 the court held a hearing. It took evidence from

the applicant and dismissed his requests for further evidence to be

taken. On the same day the court gave judgment and dismissed the

claim.

On 13 September 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the

applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the court of first instance

and referred the case back to that court in order for further evidence

to be taken.

On 28 December 1994 the applicant submitted a statement and

requested that evidence be taken from three witnesses and two medical

experts.

On 1 February 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence

from a witness.

On 28 June and 8 September 1995 medical experts submitted

reports.

On 10 October and 14 November 1995 the applicant requested the

court to take further evidence from an orthopaedist and documentary

evidence.

On 21 November 1995 the applicant's lawyer submitted a statement

and requested the court to take further evidence from witnesses.

On 15 December 1995 the court took evidence from a cardiologist

and, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the hearing.

On 19 December 1995 the applicant submitted a statement,

contesting the report prepared by a cardiologist.

On 15 May 1996 the court held a hearing and took evidence from

an orthopaedist and the applicant. The court dismissed the applicant's

request for it to take further evidence.

On 23 May 1996 the Warsaw Provincial Court gave judgment

dismissing the applicant's claim and revoking the exemption from court

fees granted on 2 February 1992.

On 30 November 1996 the applicant filed an appeal against the

above judgment. The proceedings are pending.

8. Proceedings relating to the claim against the Minister of Justice

In 1992, on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim for

compensation against the Minister of Justice with the Warsaw Provincial

Court. He claimed compensation of PLZ 60,000 on the basis that the

court which had dealt with his cases had lacked impartiality and the

judges had abused their power.

On 10 June 1993 the applicant increased the amount of the

compensation sought.

On 5 November 1993 he requested the Warsaw Provincial Court to

grant him legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees.

On 25 February 1994 the applicant again increased the amount of

the compensation claimed to PLZ 620,000.

On 20 April 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the

applicant exemption from court fees exceeding the amount of PLZ 150.

On 12 August 1994 the applicant again requested the Warsaw

Provincial Court to be exempted from court fees. On 23 November 1994

he again requested legal assistance.

On 30 December 1994 the applicant filed a further statement and

again increased the amount of the compensation claimed. He also

requested a general exemption from court fees.

On 27 February 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court dismissed the

applicant's request and held that the applicant had already been

exempted from court fees exceeding the amount of PLZ 150.

On 24 May 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the applicant's

appeal, quashed the above decision and found that the requests for

legal assistance and a further exemption from court fees should be

reconsidered.

On 25 July 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court refused to grant the

applicant legal assistance. On 13 September 1995 the same court

refused to grant him a further exemption from court fees.

On 29 September 1995 the court, upon the applicant's request,

adjourned the hearing. On the same day the applicant appealed against

the refusal to grant him legal assistance.

On 20 December 1995 the court, upon both parties' request,

adjourned a hearing.

On 5 January 1996 the applicant again increased the amount of

compensation claimed. He again requested the court to grant him a

general exemption from court fees.

On 21 February 1996 the court adjourned the hearing since the

applicant, having been duly summoned, had failed to appear.

On 22 April 1996 the court, following a hearing, rejected the

applicant's appeal against the refusal to grant him legal assistance

since the appeal had been lodged out of time.

On 10 June 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision

rejecting his appeal as being lodged out of time. The proceedings are

pending.

9. Proceedings relating to custody

On 30 March 1993 the applicant lodged a petition with the Warsaw

District Court requesting that the divorce judgment of 3 December 1990

be altered with respect to the custody arrangements, i.e. that sole

custody be granted to him.

On 26 April 1993 the applicant's ex-wife submitted her pleadings,

opposing the petition.

On 27 April 1993 the applicant was arrested in the course of the

criminal proceedings instituted against him. As a result, the

proceedings were suspended until 22 November 1993.

In the meantime the applicant requested the court to call nine

witnesses and his ex-wife requested it to call two witnesses. On

24 February 1994 the applicant requested the court to call one more

witness.

On 17 March 1994 a hearing took place. The court took evidence

from six witnesses and, on the parties' request, adjourned the hearing

in order to call seven additional witnesses proposed by them.

On 12 April 1994 the next hearing took place. The court heard

only four witnesses since the others were not present. The hearing was

adjourned in order to call the absent witnesses.

In the meantime the applicant submitted a formal request for

evidence to be taken by the Gdansk District Court from a witness

residing in Gdansk.

On 24 June 1994 the Gdansk District Court took evidence from the

applicant's witness.

On 11 July 1994 the court decided to call evidence from

psychologist experts in order to assess whether altering the custody

arrangements was in the best interest of the child. The case-file was

sent to the Family Diagnostic Centre in Warsaw.

On 26 September 1994 the Family Diagnostic Centre submitted its

report. The experts assessed the existing custody arrangements and

concluded that altering them was not recommended.

On 4 and 30 November 1994 the court, on the applicant's ex-wife's

request, adjourned the hearing. The hearing was held on 20 January

1995. The court took further evidence from the experts. The applicant

contested the experts' report and requested the court to call other

experts.

On 10 February 1995 the applicant requested the court to take

evidence from a further witness.

On 7 March 1995 the applicant's ex-wife submitted a statement,

requesting the court to grant her permission to take her daughter to

Norway.

On 17 March 1995 the court, on the applicant's ex-wife's request,

cancelled the hearing.

On 19 June 1995 the court held a hearing. The court took

evidence from three witnesses and the applicant.

On the same day the court gave judgment. It dismissed the

applicant's request to alter the custody arrangements and it granted

his ex-wife permission to take the child to Norway.

On 25 October 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the

applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of 19 June 1995 and referred

the case back to that court. The proceedings are apparently pending.

10. Proceedings concerning assault

On 27 April 1993, while the presiding judge of the Warsaw

District Court was pronouncing a decision granting the applicant's ex-

wife permission to obtain a passport for their child, the applicant

assaulted the judge, hitting and kicking her several times. He also

called her a "drunk judge". On the same day he was arrested.

On 29 April 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor charged the

applicant with assault causing actual bodily harm and insult and

detained him on remand until 27 May 1993 in view of the reasonable

suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question.

On the same day the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the

detention order which was upheld on 14 May 1993.

In the meantime the applicant was transferred from Bialol*ka

prison to the Warsaw Mokotów Prison Hospital to undergo psychiatric

observation, which psychiatric experts had considered necessary.

Subsequently, the applicant submitted numerous complaints

concerning prison conditions, for instance that his fellow-inmates

smoked; that his complaints had not been sufficiently considered; that

cells were draughty and stinking; that the blankets were dirty; and

that he had only cold water to wash himself.

On 21 May 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor prolonged the

applicant's detention on remand until 27 July 1993 in order to ensure

the proper course of proceedings.

On 11 June 1993 the applicant requested the Warsaw District

Prosecutor to take evidence from psychiatric experts in order to assess

the mental health of the judges who had dealt with his cases concerning

divorce, maintenance and custody. This request was dismissed on 21

June 1993.

On 20 July 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor prolonged the

applicant's detention until 27 October 1993 in order to ensure the

proper course of proceedings.

On 11 August 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor quashed the

detention order. The applicant was released on the same day.

On 9 September 1993 the Governor of the Warsaw Mokotów Prison

found that the applicant's complaints about prison conditions were

unsubstantiated.

Between 16 September 1993 and 8 October 1993 the applicant

underwent a psychiatric examination in the Pruszków Mental Hospital.

On 30 November 1993 a bill of indictment was lodged with the

Warsaw District Court which on 2 March 1994 held a hearing. It took

evidence from the applicant and six witnesses.

On 24 March 1994 the court, upon the applicant's request,

adjourned the hearing.

On 13 April 1994 the court held a hearing and took further

evidence from witnesses. On the same day, the court ordered further

investigations and referred the case back to the Warsaw District

Prosecutor.

On 27 April 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon both parties'

appeal, quashed the order of 13 April 1994 and ruled that the case

should proceed to be examined.

On 12 July 1994 the court adjourned a further hearing since the

applicant was ill. The case was referred back to the Warsaw District

Prosecutor in order for him to supplement the charges against the

applicant.

On 30 December 1994 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of

indictment with the Warsaw District Court.

On 15 February 1995 a hearing was scheduled. However, the

applicant's counsel requested the court to adjourn it since the

applicant was ill. The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the

applicant to submit a medical certificate endorsed by the court's

expert on pain of being arrested.

On 24 March 1995 the applicant's lawyer again requested the court

to adjourn the subsequent hearing since the applicant was ill.

However, he failed to submit a proper certificate. The court issued

a warrant to arrest the applicant in order to ensure the proper course

of proceedings.

On 26 March 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the

impartiality of the presiding judge.

On 12 April 1995 at 9.50 p.m. the applicant was arrested.

On 13 April 1995 at 9.10 a.m. a hearing commenced. The applicant

again challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge and asked for

the hearing to be adjourned. He also requested the court to refer his

case to the Supreme Court in order for it to be transferred to another

court as, in his view, the interests of justice so required. The

hearing was adjourned. The case was referred to the Supreme Court.

On 2 June 1995 the Supreme Court refused to transfer the case to

another court. The court found that there were no objective and

reasonable grounds for such measures. In addition, the court held that

the mere fact that the injured party was a judge did not suffice to

shed doubts on the impartiality of the presiding judge and the Warsaw

District Court as a whole. Otherwise, all other Polish courts would

have to be exempted from dealing with the applicant's case.

On 21 September 1995 a hearing took place. The court took

evidence from the injured party. The applicant requested the court to

adjourn the hearing in order to call absent witnesses.

On 17 October 1995 the next hearing was held. The court took

evidence from two witnesses. The parties requested the court to

adjourn the hearing and to take further evidence.

On 24 November 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence

from two witnesses. The parties requested the court to adjourn the

hearing and take further evidence.

On 21 December 1995, 9 and 20 February 1996 the court, upon the

applicant's request, cancelled the hearing.

On 8 March 1996 the next hearing took place. The court took

evidence from one witness and three psychiatric experts.

On 11 March 1996 the Warsaw District Court convicted the

applicant of assault committed in a state of diminished responsibility

and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of PLZ 200.

On 17 May 1996 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against

the judgment of the court of first instance. On 1 July 1996 the

applicant lodged a supplementary appeal.

On 31 October 1996 an appellate hearing before the Warsaw

Provincial Court was cancelled as the applicant had dismissed his

defence counsel a day before the hearing.

On the same day the Warsaw Provincial Court appointed a new

lawyer for the applicant.

On 18 November 1996 an appellate hearing was adjourned since on

15 November 1996 the applicant had again requested the court to refer

his case to the Supreme Court for another provincial court to be

assigned to examine his appeal.

On 3 December 1996 the Warsaw Provincial Court dismissed the

request as being manifestly ill-founded.

On 4 December 1996 the appeal hearing was held. The applicant

did not appear; he was represented by his lawyer. The court dismissed

the applicant's appeal and, upon the prosecutor's appeal, amended the

judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the penalty

imposed. The applicant was finally sentenced to four years'

imprisonment.

On 8 March 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against

the judgment of the Warsaw Provincial Court of 4 December 1996. The

proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court.

11. Proceedings concerning the assessment of disability

On 22 June 1994 the Warsaw Social Security issued a decision

according to which the applicant suffered from a third degree

disability. The applicant appealed against the above decision to the

Warsaw Provincial Court of Labour and Social Security (S*d Wojewódzki -

S*d Pracy i Ubezpieczen Spolecznych). He submitted that in view of his

state of health he had a second degree disability.

Subsequently, the court, upon the applicant's request, decided

to take evidence from various experts. Their reports were submitted

on 22 March, 5 April and 21 May 1995, respectively.

On 6 July 1995 the court, upon the applicant's request, cancelled

the hearing.

On 21 September 1995 the court held a hearing and, upon the

applicant's request, ordered evidence from another medical expert. The

expert's report which was submitted on 23 September 1995 concluded that

the applicant suffered from a third degree disability.

On 21 November 1995 a hearing took place. The applicant did not

appear although he had been duly summoned. On the same day the court

gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision

of 22 June 1994.

On 2 January 1996 the applicant appealed against the above

judgment to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny).

On 25 January 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the

applicant's appeal.

12. The applicant's requests to institute criminal proceedings

against third persons

Between 1991 and 1997 the applicant lodged numerous requests with

the Warsaw District Prosecutor. He requested the Prosecutor to

institute criminal proceedings against judges, prosecutors, certain

court experts, police officers, his ex-wife and several other persons.

All of the applicant's requests were dismissed by the District

Prosecutor and, on appeal, by the Warsaw Provincial Prosecutor.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that

the divorce proceedings were conducted unfairly as the courts committed

serious errors of fact and law in their decisions.

2. In respect of the defamation proceedings the applicant complains

under Article 6 of the Convention that the Skierniewice Provincial

Court refused to take evidence requested by him, which resulted in his

unjustified conviction.

3. He complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the child

maintenance proceedings were conducted unfairly since the courts

committed serious errors of fact and law.

4. Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the

Convention that the insult proceedings were conducted unfairly and that

the authorities lacked impartiality.

5. He also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about

the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to permission

to issue a passport for his child.

6. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for

compensation against the K company.

7. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about

the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim

for compensation against the Minister of the Interior.

8. He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the

unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for

compensation against the Minister of Justice.

9. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the unfairness and the length of the custody proceedings.

10. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the

criminal proceedings instituted against him for assaulting the judge

were conducted unfairly and that their length exceeded a "reasonable

time" within the meaning of this provision.

11. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the outcome and the length of the proceedings relating to the re-

assessment of the degree of his disability.

12. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that

the length of detention on remand imposed on him in the assault case

exceeded a reasonable time.

13. He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the

unhygienic conditions of his detention on remand amounted to inhuman

treatment.

14. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention,

that he was unable to institute criminal proceedings against third

persons.

15. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant submits that the

general conduct of his cases by the Polish authorities interfered with

his rights guaranteed under this provision. He complains under Article

10 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to express his

opinion about the Polish judiciary and other organs. Under Articles

13 and 18 of the Convention he alleges that he had no effective

domestic remedy against the violations of his human rights. Finally,

under Article 14 of the Convention he claims that in the course of all

the proceedings relating to his family life he was discriminated

against on the ground of his sex.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention about the unfairness and the outcome of various proceedings

in which he was involved.

a) The Commission notes that the applicant's complaints relate in

part to a period prior to 1 May 1993, i.e. the date on which Poland's

declaration acknowledging the right of individual petition took effect.

Since, in that declaration Poland limited the Commission's competence

to facts subsequent to the declaration, the Commission, by reason of

its competence ratione temporis, can only examine the applicant's

complaints insofar as they relate to the period after this date.

b) With regard to the applicant's complaints about judicial

decisions which were given after 1 May 1993, the Commission recalls

that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its

only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by

the Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not competent to

deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been

committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such

errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights

and freedoms set out in the Convention. The Commission refers, on this

point, to its established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60,

Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43

pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

c) The applicant complains about the unfairness, in particular, of

the maintenance proceedings which commenced on 24 July 1996, the

custody proceedings, the proceedings concerning assault and the

proceedings directed against the Minister of Justice and the Minister

of the Interior. However, the Commission notes that these proceedings

are still pending and no final decisions have yet been given by the

domestic courts. It follows that in this respect the application is

premature and that this part of the application must, therefore, be

declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded according to Article

27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. In respect of the defamation proceedings the applicant complains

under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the Skierniewice

Provincial Court refused to take evidence requested by him, which

resulted in his unjustified conviction.

The Commission recalls that the admissibility of evidence is

primarily a matter for regulation by national law. As a rule, it is

for the national courts to assess the evidence before them whereas it

is the Commission's task to ascertain whether the proceedings

considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken,

were fair (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April

1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).

In the present case the Commission finds no elements which would

indicate that the court went beyond its discretion to refuse to take

evidence in the course of the proceedings complained of.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that the criminal proceedings instituted against him for

publicly insulting judges were conducted unfairly and that the

authorities lacked impartiality.

The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to submit any

material relating to the course of these proceedings after 26 November

1992, i.e. the date on which he lodged an appeal against the decision

of the court of first instance.

The Commission has nevertheless examined the applicant's

complaints as they have been submitted. However, it finds no

indication that in the course of the proceedings complained of the

applicant's right to a fair trial was not respected or that the courts

lacked impartiality.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

4. The applicant also raises various complaints under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the unreasonable length and

unfairness of several proceedings in which he was involved.

The Commission, by reason of its competence ratione temporis, can

examine the applicant's complaints only insofar as they relate to

proceedings as from 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland's declaration

acknowledging the right of individual petition with a temporal

limitation took effect. However, the Commission can take into account,

in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the proceedings at

the beginning of the period under consideration (No. 7984/77, Dec.

11.7.79, D.R. 16 p. 92).

According to the Convention organs' case-law, the length of

proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular

circumstances of the case and having regard to the complexity of the

case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities

(see Eur. Court HR, Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991,

Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

a) The applicant complains, first, about the unfairness and the

length of the proceedings relating to permission to issue a passport

for his child.

The proceedings in question commenced on 8 August 1991 and ended

on 23 November 1995. However, the period to be considered as from 1

May 1993 lasted two years, six months and twenty-two days. The

Commission finds that in the conduct of these proceedings the Polish

authorities acted with the diligence required under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. It also notes that the applicant's

repeated challenges to the impartiality of the competent courts could

have contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in this case.

Insofar as the applicant complains about the unfairness of the

proceedings referred to, the Commission finds no indication that the

applicant could not put forward his point of view in the course of

these proceedings or that they were otherwise unfairly conducted.

b) The applicant complains, secondly, about the length of

proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the K

company.

The proceedings commenced on 27 February 1992 and ended on 29

November 1995. The period to be considered under Article 6 (Art. 6)

of the Convention must be calculated from 1 May 1993 and, therefore,

amounts to two years, six months and twenty-eight days. The Commission

observes that the Warsaw District Court rejected the applicant's claim

on 16 July 1993. The subsequent proceedings related solely to the

issues of the retrospective leave to appeal out of time, the rejection

of the claim for non-compliance with formal requirements and the grant

of an exemption from court fees. Even assuming that Article 6

(Art. 6) is applicable, the Commission does not find that, in the light

of the particular circumstances of the case, the Polish authorities

failed to act with the necessary diligence in this case.

c) The applicant complains, thirdly, about the unfairness and the

length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation

against the Minister of the Interior.

The proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in 1992 and are

currently pending. The period to be considered, if calculated from 1

May 1993, currently exceeds three years and ten months. The period in

question relates to the proceedings before the court of first instance,

the appeal proceedings, the subsequent proceedings before the court of

first instance and further appeal proceedings which are pending. The

applicant twice increased the amount of compensation claimed and lodged

numerous requests for the court to take evidence. The Commission finds

that the Polish authorities conducted the case with the diligence

required under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. On the other

hand, the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in

the way he chose to argue his case.

d) The applicant complains, fourthly, about the unfairness and the

length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation

against the Minister of Justice.

The proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in 1992 and are

pending. The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993,

currently exceeds three years and ten months. In the course of these

proceedings the applicant increased the amount of the compensation

claimed on four occasions, filed five requests for legal assistance and

a general exemption from court fees, and lodged three appeals. In the

meantime, the court held four hearings. The Commission finds that the

courts displayed the necessary diligence in the conduct of these

proceedings. Moreover, possible delays in the proceedings could have

resulted from the applicant's various requests and appeals.

e) The applicant complains, fifthly, about the unfairness and the

length of the custody proceedings.

The proceedings commenced on 30 March 1993 and are apparently

pending. The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993,

currently exceeds three years and ten months. The Commission, however,

notes that the applicant has failed to submit any information as to the

course of these proceedings after 25 October 1995, i.e. the date on

which the Warsaw Provincial Court quashed the judgment of the court of

first instance. In the light of the material submitted, the Commission

finds that this case was a complex one since evidence needed to be

taken from numerous witnesses proposed by the parties as well as from

experts. In the meantime, the case was examined at first instance and

on appeal. In view of the complexity and volume of the case, the

Commission does not consider that the Polish authorities failed to act

with the diligence required in the conduct of such cases. Nor does the

Commission find that the applicant's conduct caused any undue delays

in the course of the proceedings complained of.

f) The applicant complains, sixthly, that the criminal proceedings

instituted against him for assaulting the judge were conducted unfairly

and that their length exceeded a "reasonable time".

The proceedings in question commenced on 27 April 1993 when the

applicant was arrested and they are pending. The period to be

considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993, currently exceeds three

years and ten months. During this time the court of first instance

held fourteen hearings. On ten occasions the hearings were adjourned

or cancelled on the parties' or the applicant's request or because of

his absence. Assessing the facts as a whole, the Commission finds that

the courts displayed the reasonable level of diligence required in the

conduct of such cases. However, the applicant contributed to the

length of the proceedings in view of the number of his requests to

adjourn or cancel the hearings.

g) The applicant complains, seventhly, about the outcome and the

length of the proceedings relating to the re-assessment of the degree

of his disability.

The proceedings in question commenced on 22 June 1994 and ended

on 25 January 1996. Thus, they lasted one year, six months and three

days. The case was complex as it involved a need to take evidence from

various medical experts who were called on the applicant's request.

Moreover, it does not transpire from the material submitted that there

were any delays in the proceedings which could be attributed to the

respective courts.

h) As a consequence, the Commission finds that this part of the

applicant's complaints does not disclose any appearance of a violation

of his rights guaranteed under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of application is inadmissible as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5. The applicant further complains under Article 5 para. 3

(Art. 5-3) of the Convention that the length of detention on remand

imposed on him in the assault case exceeded a reasonable time.

The applicant was arrested on 27 April 1993 and released on 11

August 1993. On 12 April 1995 the applicant was again arrested and held

for approximately twelve hours. The Commission, by reason of its

competence ratione temporis, can examine the applicant's complaints

only insofar as they relate to the proceedings as from 1 May 1993.

Therefore, the period of the applicant's detention to be considered

under the Convention lasted three months, ten days and twelve hours.

The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they

have been submitted. However, having regard to the fact that there was

a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in

question, and that the authorities considered that the need to ensure

the proper course of proceedings argued for his detention, the

Commission finds that the length of the applicant's detention does not

exceed a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3

(Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of application is also manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

6. The applicant also complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention that the unhygienic conditions of his detention on remand

amounted to inhuman treatment.

However, the Commission does not find that the detention

conditions complained of are such that they attain the level of

severity required under the Convention organs' case-law to fall within

the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (see Eur. Court HR,

Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no.

25, p. 65, para. 162).

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

7. The applicant further complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that he was unable to institute criminal proceedings against

third persons.

However, the Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings

instituted against third persons (No. 9777/82, Dec. 14.7.83, D.R. 34

p. 158).

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

8. The applicant finally complains generally about the conduct of

the Polish authorities, invoking Articles 8, 10, 13, 14 and 18

(Art. 8, 10, 13, 14, 18) of the Convention.

The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they

have been submitted by him. However, after considering the case as a

whole, the Commission finds that the complaints do not disclose any

appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention.

It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

W.K. v. POLAND

W.K. v. POLAND

LEXI