FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 1007/04 by Marian ZDROJEWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President ,

Mrs V. Strážnická,

Mr J. Casadevall,

Mr R. Maruste,

Mr L. Garlicki,

Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,

Ms L. Mijović, judges and Mrs F. Elens-passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr. Marian Zdrojewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1929 in Łódź where he currently lives.

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

On 3 February 2000 the Veterans’ and Persecuted Office informed the applicant that the Office ex officio had instituted proceedings in order to verify, whether under the legislation in force, he was entitled to maintain his veteran’s status, awarded by a decision given previously.

By a decision of 12 May 2000 the Director of the Office took away the applicant’s veteran’s status. The decision was based on the fact that the applicant had served in the Civil Militia and that, under the amended legislation, this no longer constituted grounds for being granted veteran’s status.

The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 24 July 2000 the Director of the Office, having reconsidered the applicant’s case, upheld the decision of 12 May 2000.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 7 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court rendered a judgment by which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings.

2. The applicant also submits that taking away his veteran’s status and benefits deprived him of a right to security which he understood as a sense of financial security. Therefore he claims that his rights guaranteed by Article 5 were infringed.

3. The applicant also asserts that depriving him of the veteran’s status and benefits was in fact the act of punishing him without law. Consequently, he claims that his rights under Article 7 were breached.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings in his case were not conducted within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides insofar as relevant:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair...hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains that his right to security under Article 5 was infringed. The relevant part of Article 5 § 1 provides:

“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.”

The Court notes that the applicant equates “security” with financial security. However, the concept of “security of person” in Article 5 refers to physical security of person in the sphere of arrest or detention. It does not guarantee a right to have a “sense of financial security”. Therefore the applicant’s complaint is incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that depriving him of the veteran’s status and benefits was in fact the act of punishing him without law. Article 7, insofar as relevant, reads:

“1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.”

However, this provision does not apply since the removal of his entitlement to veteran status does not involve a finding that the applicant was guilty of a criminal offence (see: Coëme and Others v. Belgium , nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; Skórkiewicz v. Poland , (dec), no. 36860/98, 1 June 1999). Consequently, his complaint under Article 7 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the allegedly unreasonable length of the compensation proceedings.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-passos Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President