Search
document

Document text Analytics

KRZUS v. POLAND

Doc ref: 25084/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2028

Document date: January 17, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

KRZUS v. POLAND

Doc ref: 25084/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2028

Document date: January 17, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25084/94

by Feliks KRZUS

against Poland

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 January 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 7 February 1994

by Feliks KRZUS against Poland and registered on 6 September 1994 under

file No. 25084/94;

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, a Polish citizen born in 1926, is a retired

mariner, residing in Gdynia in Poland.

The applicant was afflicted by a disease. On 8 February 1990 the

Regional Inspector of Public Health refused to acknowledge the

occupational character of the disease. On 28 February 1990 the

applicant appealed against this decision to the General Inspector of

Public Health.

On 28 November 1991 the applicant complained to the Supreme

Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny) about the General

Inspector's failure to decide on his appeal. On 2 December 1991 the

General Inspector of Public Health dismissed the applicant's appeal.

Subsequently the Supreme Administrative Court twice asked the

applicant to indicate whether he wished to uphold his complaint about

the General Inspector's failure to issue a decision, or to withdraw

it. On 4 June 1994 the applicant informed the Court that he wished

to uphold his complaint of 28 November 1991 since the General Inspector

had meanwhile dismissed his claim.

On 30 July 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to

discontinue the proceedings with regard to the applicant's complaint

about the General Inspector's failure to issue a decision as it had

become devoid of purpose.

On 1 March 1993 the Regional Inspector of Public Health, in reply

to a letter by the applicant of 15 February 1993, informed him that,

as he had not filed an appeal against the final decision of

2 December 1991 within the applicable time-limit, no further appeal was

possible against this decision.

On 17 March 1993 the applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme

Administrative Court against the decision of 2 December 1991 and

requested reinstatement into the proceedings.

On 2 August 1993 the applicant filed a memorial with the Supreme

Administrative Court again requesting reinstatement into the

proceedings. The applicant contended that his disease was of an

occupational character and that the decisions of the Regional and

General Inspectors had been wrong.

On 30 December 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the

request for reinstatement into the proceedings together with the

applicant's appeal. The Court found that the applicant had failed to

file an appeal against the decision of the General Inspector of

2 December 1991 within the applicable time-limit. The Court considered

that reinstatement into the proceedings could be granted only if an

appropriate request had been made immediately after an impediment to

file an appeal had ceased to exist. Thus, the applicant should have

requested the reinstatement into the proceedings immediately after he

had learned about the Court's decision of 30 July 1992 to discontinue

the proceedings. However, he had only done so after a significant

delay.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that

the Supreme Administrative Court twice declined to deal with the merits

of his complaint. He submits that the authorities failed to deal with

his case within a reasonable time as the proceedings lasted from

February 1990 until 30 December 1993.

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 read together

with Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention that the proceedings were

unfair as the authorities concerned failed to consider his arguments

about the harmful character of his work. He further submits that the

authorities' decisions were wrong.

THE LAW

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

Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court twice declined to deal

with the merits of his complaints. He submits that the authorities

failed to deal with his case within a reasonable time, as the

proceedings lasted from February 1990 until 30 December 1993. The

applicant further complains that the authorities failed to consider his

arguments and issued a wrong decision.

The Commission has examined these complaints under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which states insofar as relevant:

" 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) Insofar as the applicant's complaints relate to a period prior

to 1 May 1993, 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) In respect to the events after 1 May 1993 the Commission observes

that the decisions complained of concerned a request for the

reinstatement into the proceedings. However, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention does not apply to proceedings which determine whether or not

a person should be reinstated into previous proceedings (see mutatis

mutandis No.7761/77, Dec. 8.5.77, D.R. 14 p.171).

It follows that the remainder 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.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant