Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25086/94

by Bronislawa PROSZAK

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 28 April 1994 by

Bronislawa PROSZAK against Poland and registered on 6 September 1994

under file No. 25086/94;

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 pensioner

residing in Stalowa Wola.

I.

In 1985 the applicant's son died. The investigations into the

causes of his death were eventually terminated as no criminal offence

had been committed.

On 13 May 1986 the psychiatrist B. M. issued a medical

certificate that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia.

On 12 February 1992 the Ministry of Justice informed the

applicant that an investigation relating to the medical certificate

issued in 1986 would be undertaken.

On 22 June 1992 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant

that investigations into the causes of her son's death would be

resumed. On 3 August 1992 the Stalowa Wola District Prosecutor resumed

investigations and on 31 December 1992 decided to terminate them as it

had been established that no criminal offence had been committed. The

applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision.

On 23 April 1993 the applicant requested the Minister of Justice

to reopen criminal proceedings concerning the death of her son.

On 30 September 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Prosecutor confirmed

the refusal to institute criminal proceedings relating to the death of

the applicant's son.

II.

On 20 December 1988 the applicant was assaulted and beaten by her

neighbour R.T. On 29 November 1989 the Stalowa Wola District Court

(S*d Rejonowy w Stalowej Woli) convicted the latter of assault and

causing bodily harm and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. On

12 March 1990 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki w

Tarnobrzegu) decided to discontinue the proceedings by virtue of the

Amnesty Act.

On 25 October 1990 the applicant filed a civil action with the

Stalowa Wola District Court against R.T. claiming compensation of five

million zloty for damage resulting from the assault. At an unspecified

later date she increased her claim.

On 23 February 1993 the applicant underwent a psychiatric

examination ordered by the Stalowa Wola District Court for the purposes

of the civil proceedings for compensation.

On 8 June 1993 the Court held a hearing in the civil proceedings

and heard a psychiatrist as an expert.

On 18 June 1993 the applicant refused to undergo a further

psychiatric examination. She contended that there were sufficient

documents in the case-file relating to her mental health as she had

already been examined by psychiatrists at least twice in the course of

the proceedings. She pointed out that she did not understand how a

further psychiatric examination of the victim of the assault could be

useful for the determination of the civil liability of the defender.

On 7 September 1993 the applicant informed the Court that she had

been unable to attend a hearing on 2 September 1993 for health reasons

and submitted a medical certificate to this effect. She also

complained about the length of the proceedings.

Subsequently the applicant complained to the President of the

Stalowa Wola District Court about the prolongation of the proceedings.

On 18 October 1993 the President informed her that this was in part due

to her refusal to undergo a further medical examination. He found no

indications of lack of diligence on the part of the Court.

On 26 October 1993 the applicant complained to the Minister of

Justice about the length of the proceedings. She submitted that the

President of the Court had failed to reply to three of her complaints.

She challenged the judge claiming that she had not diligently dealt

with the case and was biased against the applicant. On 2 November 1993

the Ministry transmitted this letter to the President of the Tarnobrzeg

Regional Court.

On 16 November 1993 the applicant requested to be examined by a

psychiatrist specialised in the syndrome of former prisoners of the

German concentration camps as she had been imprisoned in Ravensbrück

during the Second World War.

Subsequently the applicant formally challenged the judge on the

grounds that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.

On 10 March 1994 the District Court in Stalowa Wola dismissed the

applicant's challenge of the judge as lacking a basis in law.

The applicant apparently appealed against this decision, but her

appeal was rejected as not complying with the formal requirements.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the length of the civil proceedings

exceeds a reasonable time as no complex issues are involved. She

contends that there were several periods of inactivity in the

proceedings; that the Court is unable to determine the steps to be

taken and that there is therefore no progress in the proceedings at

least since September 1993. The applicant relies on Article 6 of the

Convention.

She complains that the medical certificate issued in 1986 ruined

her reputation and caused her inconveniences and annoyance.

She further complains that the Ministry of Justice refused to

reopen the criminal proceedings concerning the death of her son.

The applicant alleges that she is persecuted by her former

husband and his wife, her neighbours and other persons.

The applicant does not invoke any particular provision of the

Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the medical certificate issued in

1986 ruined her reputation and resulted in inconveniences and

annoyance.

The Commission recalls that Poland recognised the competence of

the Commission to receive individual applications "from any person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individual 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).

2. The applicant complains that the Public Prosecutor refused to

reopen the criminal proceedings concerning the death of her son.

However, the Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal

proceedings instituted or reopened against third parties. This

complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the

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

Convention.

3. The applicant alleges that she is persecuted by her former

husband and his wife, her neighbours and other persons. As these

complaints concern private persons, it follows that they are

incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning

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

4. The applicant finally complains about the length of the civil

proceedings which were instituted in October 1990 and which are still

pending before the first instance court. The Commission, which has

examined this complaint under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention, considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, decide

on this complaint without the observations of both parties.

The Commission therefore considers that this part of the

application must be adjourned.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint

concerning the length of the civil proceedings;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)

Menu

PROSZAK v. POLAND

PROSZAK v. POLAND

LEXI