Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 28232/95

by Miroslaw GRODECKI

against Poland

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 16 October 1996, 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

L. LOUCAIDES

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

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 12 December 1994

by Miroslaw GRODECKI against Poland and registered on 17 August 1995

under file No. 28232/95;

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 1931, is a retired

engineer, residing in Warsaw.

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

summarised as follows:

From 1950 the applicant worked at various engineering posts at

the State Railways. He retired in 1990 from the post in the Railways'

engineering design branch, retaining an entitlement to reduced prices

of railway tickets and to use the medical care of the Railways' medical

services as a part of his retirement benefits.

On 1 January 1992 the Railways' engineering design branch was

detached from the general structure of the Railways and given a

separate status.

On 20 June 1992 the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport

Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices was enacted. It provided in

Article 7 that entitlements to the tickets at reduced prices were in

principle abolished, with certain exceptions only. It further

invalidated relevant provisions of numerous industrial collective

agreements, concerning many categories of civil servants. Its Article

8 provided that the public transport companies could maintain such

entitlement for their employees and retired employees, should they wish

to do so.

On 12 January 1993 the State Railways' Director General issued

an Order No. 4, which maintained the entitlement to reduced prices of

the tickets for its retired employees, but took this entitlement away

from the retired employees of the Railways' engineering design branch.

The Order further took away the entitlement to use the Railways'

medical services for this group of retired employees in view of the

fact that in 1991 this branch had been detached from the general

structure of the Railways and given a separate status.

On 17 November 1993 the Ombudsman requested that the

Constitutional Court (Trybunal Konstytucyjny) examine whether

Articles 7 and 9 of the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport Free

of Charge or at Reduced Prices were compatible with the Constitution,

in particular its Articles 1, 67 paras. 1 and 2 and 70 paras. 1 and

2 (1). The Ombudsman further requested that the Court determine

whether the Order No. 4 of 12 January 1993 was compatible with certain

statutes and in particular with Article 8 of the Act on the Entitlement

to Public Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices, and with

Articles 1, 67 paras. 1 and 2 and 70 paras. 1 and 2 (1) of the

Constitution. The National Committee of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union

submitted a similar request.

On 21 June 1994 the Constitutional Court held a hearing. The

Court heard the representatives of the Ombudsman and of the

"Solidarnosc" Trade Union, of the Parliament, of the Ministry of

Transport and of the Prosecutor General.

In the judgment of 28 June 1994 the Constitutional Court declared

that the impugned provisions of the Act on the Entitlement to Public

Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices and of the Director

General's Order No. 4 of 12 January 1993 were compatible with the

Constitution.

Relevant domestic law

Article 33 of the Polish Constitution of 1952 which remains in

force by virtue of Article 77 of the Constitutional Act of

17 October 1992 provides that the Constitutional Court gives rulings

on the conformity of legislation with the Constitution. It also

promulgates binding interpretations of law.

Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitutional Court Act provide an

exhaustive list of institutions who can request the Court to decide

whether a particular regulation is compatible with the Constitution or

with statutes. This list includes the President, the Presidium of the

Parliament, the parliamentary commissions, a group of fifty members of

the Parliament, the Presidium of the Senate, the commissions of the

Senate, a group of thirty senators, the State Tribunal, the Government,

the Prime Minister, the Ombudsman, the President of the Highest Audit

Chamber, the President of the Supreme Court, the President of the

Supreme Administrative Chamber and the General Prosecutor. Such

requests can also be submitted by the municipalities and national

headquarters of certain associations.

There is no individual constitutional complaint to the Court

under Polish law as a remedy against decisions of the courts or

administrative authorities, nor can individual citizens submit requests

for rulings on the compatibility of laws with the Constitution.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that

his right to life was breached in that he lost an entitlement to

medical care in the railway health services.

He complains under Article 4 of the Convention that he worked in

the State Railways mostly for the sake of the additional entitlements

which compensated for the low salary and that due to the decisions

concerned his work acquired retrospectively a character of forced

labour.

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention

that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were unfair, and

about their outcome.

The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention that

the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court amounted to

discrimination against the employees of the Railways' engineering

branch as they lost their lawfully acquired rights.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the

Convention that his right to life was breached in that he lost an

entitlement to medical care in railway health services.

Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads:

"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one

shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the

execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction

of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."The

Commission observes that this provision of the Convention

does not guarantee a right to certain specific health

services. Moreover, in the circumstances of the case no

loss of or even danger to life or limb is involved.

Therefore the situation complained of does not amount to a

breach of the applicant's right to life within the meaning

of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Commission. 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.

2. The applicant complains under Article 4 (Art. 4) of the

Convention that he worked in the State Railways mostly for the sake of

the additional entitlements which compensated for the low salary and

that due to the decisions concerned his work acquired retrospectively

a character of forced labour.

Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,

provides:

"2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory

labour."

Insofar as the applicant complains that as a result of the

impugned decisions his work acquired retrospectively a character of

forced labour, even assuming that such retroactive effect of the

decision concerned could be considered, the Commission recalls that

Poland recognised the competence of the Commission to receive

individual applications "from any person, non-governmental organisation

or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the

rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event

occurring after 30 April 1993". In accordance with this limitation in

the Polish declaration, the Commission is not competent to examine

complaints relating to violations of the Convention by acts, decisions

or events that have occurred prior to this date. Therefore this

complaint is outside its competence ratione temporis and must be

rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention

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

3. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13) of

the Convention that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court

were unfair, and about their outcome.

The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention. Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in its

relevant part reads:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ..."

The Commission recalls that the applicability of Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention depends on whether the proceedings at issue

concern the determination of "civil rights and obligations". The

Commission observes that under Polish law an individual does not have

standing in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. In the

present case the applicant was not a party to the proceedings before

this Court and the law did not allow him to be a party in such

proceedings. Therefore the proceedings at issue did not concern the

applicant's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article

6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Consequently, this provision

is inapplicable thereto.

It follows that part of the application is incompatible ratione

materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4. The applicant complains under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention that the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court

amounted to discrimination against the employees of the Railways'

engineering branch as they lost their lawfully acquired rights.

The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) has no

independent existence, but only complements the other substantive

provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, since it has effect

solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by those

provisions (see Eur. Court HR, Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October

1987, p. 17, para. 36). The Commission considers that no separate

issue arises under this provision of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is also 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

GRODECKI v. POLAND

GRODECKI v. POLAND

LEXI