Application No. 25403/94

                      by Krzysztof DROZD

                      against Poland

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

5 March 1996, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President

                 H. DANELIUS

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                 D. SVÁBY

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 P. LORENZEN

                 K. HERNDL

           Mr.   M. de SALVIA, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 3 February 1994 by

Krzyszof DROZD against Poland and registered on 10 October 1994 under

file No. 25403/94;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to :

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

      20 November 1995;

-     the information of 8 November 1995 and 27 November 1995 and the

      applicant's comments of 30 November 1995;

-     the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on

      10 January 1996;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows:

      The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1960, is a businessman

residing in Warsaw.

      On 22 February 1993 the Siedlce Regional Public Prosecutor issued

a warrant for the arrest of the applicant, suspected of aggravated fraud.

On the same day the applicant was arrested by the police and remanded in

custody.  He tried to avoid arrest by hiding in a couch.

      On 26 February 1993 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor declined to deal

with the applicant's appeal against the warrant of arrest.  On

9 March 1993 the Siedlce Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki) dismissed the

applicant's further appeal against this warrant as there were sufficient

grounds to believe that the applicant had committed the offence, based

on testimony of two witnesses and a letter of a bank.  The Court

considered that there was a risk of the applicant absconding.  The Court

referred to the seriousness of the offence, having regard to the very

substantial sums apparently involved in the fraud.

      On 24 March 1993 the Public Prosecutor in the Ministry of Justice

upheld the refusal to entertain the applicant's complaint of

26 February 1993, considering that the applicant's behaviour before and

during his arrest justified the conclusion that there was a risk of

absconding.  With regard to the applicant's submissions that his mother

was terminally ill with cancer and needed his care, he observed that in

the past the applicant had not been taking care of her and that her

neighbour was presently doing so.  There were also reasonable grounds to

consider that the applicant had committed the offence at issue.

      On 2 April 1993 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor declined to deal

with the applicant's further request for release.  The applicant appealed

against this decision, contending, inter alia, that there was no evidence

to support charges against him.  On 5 May 1993 the Prosecutor in the

Ministry of Justice upheld the appealed decision as the suspicion against

the applicant was supported by the testimony of two further witnesses and

of the co-accused, and by further documents.  In the course of the

investigations new facts had come to light which showed that the

applicant should be charged with further offences.  There was a risk of

absconding and collusion, demonstrated inter alia by the fact that in the

course of the investigations computers of one of the applicant's firms

had surreptitiously been taken away from its headquarters, apparently by

the applicant's accomplices.  Before his arrest the applicant had sold

his shares in his firm to a third party, apparently in order to avoid

criminal responsibility.  The applicant had been refusing to confirm

receipt of a summons to appear before the Public Prosecutor.  At the time

of the arrest he had been hiding in the couch.  As to his mother's

situation, though it was true that she needed assistance, being ill with

cancer, she was being taken care of by her neighbour and, having a

considerable property, could afford to hire a paid help.

      On 12 August 1993 the Siedlce Regional Court prolonged the

applicant's detention until 20 November 1993 as the reasons herefor

continued to exist.  The Court referred to the earlier decisions relating

to the applicant's detention.  The Court noted that further witnesses had

to be heard.  The applicant appealed against this decision, contending

that he required medical treatment and that his mother was terminally

ill.

      On 13 August 1993 the applicant was transferred to the prison

hospital in Warsaw.  On 31 August 1993 a medical panel of the Central

Hospital of the Detention Centre at Rakowiecka Street examined him and

concluded that he should be released to undergo medical treatment in a

specialised hospital.  On 14 September 1993 the applicant was examined

in the Warsaw Medical Academy.  On 27 September 1994 he refused to

undergo a biopsy in the Academy as he would have to be taken thereafter

to the prison hospital which, in his view, would not have secured

sufficient medical care.

      On 12 October 1993 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor transmitted the

applicant's appeal against the decision of the Siedlce Regional Court of

12 August 1993 to the Siedlce Regional Court, but failed to include in

the file the opinion of the medical panel and other medical documents.

Subsequently the Siedlce Regional Court transmitted the case-file to the

Lublin Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny) for a decision on the appeal.

      On 18 October 1993 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the decision

of 12 August 1993 as the evidence sufficiently indicated that the

suspicion against the applicant was well-founded.  The applicant's

medical condition, a tumour in the cheek, could not justify his release

as he had refused to undergo treatment in the prison hospital as well as

the biopsy in the Medical Academy.  As the applicant's mother now was in

hospital, she did not need his assistance.  The Court considered,

however, that the applicant should be allowed to visit his mother in

hospital in the presence of a policeman.

      On 4 November 1993 the applicant's mother died.  The applicant did

not see his mother before she died and did not attend her funeral.

      On 4 November 1993 the applicant complained to the Minister of

Justice that his detention was unjustified as his acts did not constitute

criminal offences.

      On 19 November 1993 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor closed the

investigations and transmitted a bill of indictment to the Siedlce

Regional Court.

      On 25 November 1993 the Siedlce prison governor requested the

applicant's release on medical grounds.

      On 5 January 1994 the applicant complained to the Siedlce Regional

Court that the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor had not taken any appropriate

action with regard to the recommendation of the medical panel of

31 August 1993.  He alleged that the Prosecutor had failed to present

this document to the Lublin Court of Appeal deciding on 18 October 1993

upon prolongation of his detention.  He contended that the Prosecutor had

presented to the Court only an opinion of another physician who had not

participated in the medical panel of 31 August 1993.  He complained that

he was not receiving appropriate medical treatment and that the prison's

motion of 23 November 1993 had not been dealt with.  The applicant

further complained that neither he nor his counsel were granted access

to the case-file.

      On 19 January 1994 the applicant received a copy of the bill of

indictment.

      On 10 February 1994 the applicant underwent a medical examination.

      On 21 February 1994 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor informed the

applicant that it did not transpire from an internal enquiry that his

medical documents had not been duly presented to the Lublin Court of

Appeal in October 1993.

      On 24 February 1994 a medical certificate was issued, stating that

the applicant's condition was worsening and that he should be treated in

a hospital specialised in face surgery.  On 8 March 1994 the Siedlce

Regional Court refused to release the applicant.  The Court considered

that the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence at issue

was supported by evidence given by the applicant's co-accused.  As to the

applicant's health, the court noted that the doctors had not been

unanimous as to the required therapy; the disease had been worsening in

fact as the applicant refused to cooperate with the doctors.  Further

detention would not seriously endanger his health or life as he could be

treated in an appropriate civil hospital without being released.

      The applicant appealed against this decision.  He pointed out that

his medical condition had not been treated and that it had continuously

been worsening over the last eight months.  He submitted that the

Regional Court had not referred to the medical opinion of 31 August 1993,

stating that the applicant should be released to undergo treatment and

operation outside the prison.

      On 19 March 1994 the applicant requested to be released on bail.

He submitted that his detention was unjustified as there was no risk of

absconding or collusion.  Moreover, his condition called for specialised

medical treatment, which was not available in the prison hospital.

      On 24 March 1994 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the decision of

8 March 1994 and referred the case back to the Siedlce Regional Court.

The Court of Appeal considered that the medical opinion submitted to the

lower court did not contain information sufficient for a full assessment

of whether the applicant should be released for health reasons.

Moreover, this opinion was prepared by one of the physicians who had

participated in the medical panel of 31 August 1993, which prejudged the

outcome of the examination.  Thus another medical examination should be

ordered.

      On 29 April 1994 the applicant underwent the examination in

a specialised ward of the Warsaw Medical Academy.  A provisional opinion

was issued that his condition necessitated treatment in a university

hospital.

      On 18 May 1994 the applicant complained in a letter to the Lublin

Court of Appeal that the Siedlce Court of Appeal was not diligent enough

in dealing with his case.  In particular, the Court had failed to

consider the consequences of the medical expert opinion for the further

detention of the applicant.

      On 19 May 1994 the Siedlce Regional Court dismissed the applicant's

complaint that it was not territorially competent to consider the case.

      On 22 September 1994 the applicant was released.  The case was

transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court and is still pending.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he

was not afforded adequate medical treatment.  He further complains that

he was not permitted to see his dying mother or to attend her funeral.

      Under Article 4 para. 1 of the Convention he complains that he spent

18 months in detention without any examination of whether his detention

was justified.

      Under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains

that his detention was arbitrary as none of the grounds set out in this

provision applied in his case.  In particular he had not committed nay

criminal offence as stated in Article 5 para. 1 (c).

      Under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention he contends that his

detention was unreasonably long.  He complains that he was not brought

before a judge who reviewed the lawfulness of his detention and to whom

he could have presented his argument.

      The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention

that no authority properly reviewed the lawfulness of his detention.

Every appeal authority only repeated arguments of the lower authority

without any analysis of their well-foundedness.

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

that the judges and prosecutors were biased against him.

      Under Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention he complains that his

requests to appoint bookkeeping experts were refused.

      Under Article 7 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains

that he was charged on account of acts which did not constitute criminal

offences under national law as his acts were in fact usual decisions

taken in the management of his firm.

      Under Article 8 of the Convention he complains that all his letters

to and from the Commission and the Ombudsman have been opened and read

by the Regional Court.  His other letters have also been opened and read

even after the investigations were closed and the indictment was sent to

court.

      Under Article 11 of the Convention the applicant complains that his

right to freedom of association was breached in that documents relating

to an association which he founded were unjustifiably included in the

case-file.

      The applicant complains that he had no effective remedy to complain

about breaches of his rights as his complaints to higher authorities were

routinely transmitted to be dealt with by those persons about whom he had

complained.

      Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complains that he

was discriminated against in the enjoyment of his rights under the

Convention on the grounds of his personal wealth.  He alleges that the

Siedlce Regional Public Prosecutor T.Z. told him that he would remain in

custody as he was rich.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 3 February 1994 and registered on

10 October 1994.  The applicant was informed in the registration letter

that the proceedings of the Commission are confidential and the contents

of case-file, including the observations of the parties and

correspondence, must not be made public.

      On 6 April 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government for observations on the

admissibility and merits.

      By letter of 8 November 1995 the Government expressed their concern

about the publicity in the Polish media concerning the applicant's case

before the Commission.  In particular, in a November issue of the

newspaper "Smiechu Warte" a copy of the Commission's letter of

7 August 1995 to the applicant was published. This letter informed the

applicant that the request of the Government for an extension of the

time-limit for the submission of the observations had not been granted.

In a neighbouring column a critical comment about the case was published,

signed by L. B., a candidate in the presidential election.  Both L.B. and

the applicant are on the editorial board of the newspaper.  In his

comment L.B. strongly criticised the Government for having failed to

submit the observations in time and called the public servants

representing the Government in the proceedings before the Commission

"uneducated and corrupt".  The Government stated that the applicant must

have been directly and deliberately involved in publishing the letter as

he was on the editorial board. The Government further drew the

Commission's attention to the fact that the newspaper concerned

disseminates extremist anti-semitic views.  They stated that the article

in question created an imbalance in informing the general public of the

case before the Commission.  This breach of confidentiality was even more

aggravated by its political context, namely the fact that it had been

committed during the presidential campaign and used for the purposes of

that campaign.  It could seriously jeopardise the credibility of the

Convention system in Poland.   The Government requested that the

Commission should reject the application on the ground of abuse of the

right of petition within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the

Convention.

      On 20 November 1995 the Government submitted their observations.

      By letter of 22 November 1995 the applicant was requested to comment

on the confidentiality issue before 30 November 1995.

      By letter of 27 November 1995 the Government further informed the

Secretariat that in May 1995 the publication "Forum against Corruption"

published a letter of 10 April 1995 from the Secretariat of the

Commission in which the applicant was informed of the Commission's

decision to communicate the case to the Government.  The Government

pointed out that the responsibility of the applicant for publication of

this letter was well established as the applicant was on the editorial

board of the newspaper.  The Government reiterated their deep concern

about the publication of the Secretariat's two letters in newspapers and

leaflets of wide distribution and about abusing the applicant's case for

political purposes in the course of the presidential campaign.  They

indicated that in comments to the letters their authors resorted to

insulting statements against the Government and accused the civil

servants responsible for dealing with the applications to the Commission

of corruption and incompetence.

      By letter of 30 November 1995 the applicant replied that the

Commission's letter of 7 August 1995 could have been published as it only

concerned the proceedings before the Commission and not the merits of the

case.  He submitted that it had not been stated in this letter that it

was confidential.  He further submitted that there was a bill being

discussed in the Polish Parliament with the alleged purpose of limiting

the right of individual petition.  He made general  allegations about

violations of human rights in Poland by the State.

      On 10 January 1996 the applicant submitted his observations in

reply.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

      In view of the information provided in the Government's letters of

8 November 1995 and 27 November 1995 and the applicant's letter of 30

November 1995, the Commission finds it necessary to consider whether it

is justified to continue the examination of the present application

within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

      Article 30 para. 1, so far as relevant, reads as follows:

      "The Commission may at any stage of the proceedings decide to

      strike a petition out of its list of cases where the circumstances

      lead to the conclusion that : ...

           c.  for any other reason established by the Commission, it is

           no longer justified to continue the examination of the

           petition.

      However, the Commission shall continue the examination of a petition

      if respect for human rights as defined in this Convention so

      requires."

      The Commission notes that the applicant made public confidential

information concerning the proceedings before the Commission.  In

particular the applicant disclosed the Commission's decision to

communicate the case to the respondent Government by quoting in extenso

the Commission's letter informing him thereof on a strictly confidential

basis.  He further published the letter in which an extension of the

time-limit for submission of the observations by the Government had been

refused and criticised the delays in the proceedings on the part of the

Government.  The applicant must have been aware of the confidentiality

of the proceedings as he had been informed thereof.

      The Commission considers that the parties are obliged to respect the

confidentiality of its proceedings.  In this respect, the Commission

refers to Article 33 of the Convention which provides that the

"Commission shall meet in camera" and to Rule 47 of its Rules of

Procedure.  In the present case, the applicant's responsibility for

disclosure of confidential information concerning the proceedings before

the Commission has been established as the applicant is on the editorial

boards of both newspapers concerned.  The Commission finds that the

applicant's conduct constitutes a serious breach of confidentiality.  The

explanations given by the applicant do not disclose any circumstances

which could justify his conduct.

      In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is no

longer justified to continue the examination of the application within

the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention (c.f., mutatis

mutandis, No. 20915/92, Comm. Report 3.3.95, D.R. 80-A, p. 74).

      Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the

Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for

human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further

examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine

of the Convention.

      In view thereof, the Commission finds that it is not necessary to

consider whether the facts of the case amount to an abuse of the right

of petition within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

      DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission

           (M. de SALVIA)                       (S. TRECHSEL)