Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25030/94

by Ludwik SOWINSKI

against Poland

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 6 September 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

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 14 April 1994 by

Ludwik Sowinski against Poland and registered on 30 August 1994 under

file No. 25030/94;

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

summarised as follows:

The applicant is a Polish citizen residing in Radomsko. He is

represented before the Commission by his present guardian, Mr. Stefan

Sowinski, a retired judge residing in Radomsko.

In the early 1970s the applicant was legally incapacitated.

In 1975 the Regional Office in Lódz decided to expropriate a

house belonging to the applicant and located in Radomsko. Compensation

of 592,626 zlotys was paid into a court account.

In 1977 the applicant's brother Z., who was then his guardian,

requested authorisation from the Radomsko District Court (S*d Rejonowy)

to pay 311,400 zlotys into a special housing savings account and the

remaining 188,600 zlotys into the applicant's ordinary savings account.

In 1979 the Radomsko District Court decided that the entire sum

of the compensation should be deposited in the applicant's ordinary

savings account.

In 1983 the applicant's brother S. was appointed his guardian.

On 21 October 1992 the Director of the Radomsko District Office

quashed the expropriation decision of 1975 as the property had become

redundant for the purpose of expropriation. The property was to be

given back to the applicant. He ordered that the sum of 298 million

zlotys, being the equivalent of the compensation which the applicant

had received, be paid to the District Office.

The applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted that

the sum to be reimbursed as compensation was exorbitant. He stated

that in 1975 he had received compensation of 592,626 zlotys. From 1975

to 1992, neither he nor his guardians had had any access to the money

or say in how to allocate it, as the Radomsko District Court had frozen

it in the applicant's savings account. The applicant submitted a

certificate issued by the Radomsko District Court in 1992 to the effect

that he was unable to obtain the release of the money as the court had

ordered them to be frozen in the savings account. Thus the sum to be

reimbursed should be reduced, regard being had to this particular

situation. The applicant should be obliged to reimburse only the

amount of compensation paid in 1975 with the interest accrued on his

savings account.

On 1 December 1992 the Governor of the Lódz Region upheld the

decision. He considered that the sum to be reimbursed by the applicant

was calculated in accordance with the applicable regulations, taking

account of the inflation. The fact that the applicant had had no

access to the money paid as compensation was irrelevant.

The applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative

Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny), submitting that in the

circumstances of the case the calculation of the compensation was

manifestly unfair. In particular, he pointed out that had he been

allowed to put the money in the housing savings account, he would have

been able to purchase an apartment. He should not be penalised for the

incorrect decision of the Radomsko District Court which prevented him

from investing the money.

On 30 August 1993 the Court adjourned the proceedings in order

to refer a legal problem to the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy). The

question was in particular whether it was possible to exempt the

applicant from the obligation to reimburse the compensation calculated

in accordance with the applicable regulations and to reduce the sum to

be paid in reimbursement of the compensation, regard being had to the

fact that the applicant had had no access to the compensation for

reasons beyond his control.

On 29 November 1993 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the

question submitted by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Court

considered it obvious that it was impossible to exempt the applicant

from the applicable regulations concerning calculation of the

compensation to be reimbursed.

On 8 April 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the

applicant's appeal. The court considered that in the light of the

position of the Supreme Court it was impossible to reduce the sum to

be reimbursed. The fact that the compensation had been deposited in

the applicant's savings account was of no relevance to the case.

Furthermore, the applicant had not shown that he had been denied

access to the compensation deposited in his account as he had not

submitted any decisions by which the court would have refused the

guardian an authorisation to use the money for the applicant's benefit.

The certificate issued by the court in 1992 was insufficient to prove

this.

COMPLAINTS

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

that the proceedings concerning allocation of the compensation were

unreasonably long as the Radomsko District Court ruled on his

guardian's request of 1977 only in 1979.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention

that he was denied access to court in that the Radomsko District Court

did not rule on his request for permission to deposit part of the

compensation in his housing savings account. Thus the applicant was

placed in a continuing situation of lack of access to court.

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

Convention about the outcome of the proceedings concerning the

calculation of the compensation to be reimbursed. He submits that the

final decision was manifestly unfair as it penalised the applicant for

incorrect decisions of the State authorities relating to the use and

investment of the compensation.

THE LAW

The applicant submits various complaints under Article 6 para.

1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Insofar as relevant, this provision reads as follows:

" In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...)

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a

reasonable time by (a) tribunal (...)"

a. The applicant first complains about the length of the proceedings

concerning his guardian's request for allocation of compensation.

However, this complaint relates to proceedings which took place between

1977 and 1979. 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 by Poland of the rights

recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event

occurring after 30 April 1993".

It follows that this part of the application is outside the

competence ratione temporis of the Commission and therefore

incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning

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

b. The applicant further complains that he was placed in a

continuing situation of lack of access to court as the Radomsko

District Court allegedly failed to rule on his request concerning the

placing of the money in the housing savings account.

The Commission is competent ratione temporis to examine this

complaint only insofar as it is alleged that there continued to be no

access to court after 30 April 1993. In this respect the Commission

notes that the applicant's request of 1977 to pay part of the

compensation into a housing savings account was in fact determined by

the Radomsko District Court already in 1979 and therefore was no longer

pending before a court after the above date. Nor has it been shown

that after that date it would not have been possible for the applicant

to raise any related claims before a court in Poland.

This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-

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

Convention.

c. The applicant finally complains about the proceedings concerning

the calculation of the compensation to be reimbursed. However, he does

not allege any particular shortcomings in the procedure followed, but

rather challenges the outcome of the proceedings.

The Commission recalls in this respect 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 in 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, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R.77-B,

p.81).

The applicant's complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) is therefore

in this respect manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article

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

Insofar as the applicant might be understood as complaining that

the result of the above proceedings amounted to an unjustified

interference with his property rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, the Commission observes that

Poland ratified this Protocol only on 10 October 1994. Thus, an

examination under this provision is not possible having regard to the

Commission's competence ratione temporis.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)

Menu

SOWINSKIv. POLAND

SOWINSKIv. POLAND

LEXI