THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 40694/98 by Zenon SOBAŃSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section) , sitting on 28 August 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr L. Loucaides ,

Mr M. Makarczyk , Mr P. KÅ«ris , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mrs H.S. Greve , judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 September 1997 and registered on 7 April 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Zenon Soba ń ski, is a Polish [Note1] national , born in 1963 and living in Warsaw. He is represented before the Court by his father, Mr Zbigniew Sobański .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 1 May 1983 the applicant, following clashes with the police during anti-communist demonstrations, was put by the police in their van and beaten. He was seriously injured. On 17 May 1983 he was discharged from hospital. A brain injury, post-traumatic epilepsy and permanent brain damage were diagnosed. Since then he has remained in the care of a psychiatric clinic.

By a judgment of 24 June 1986, the Warsaw Regional Court granted the applicant compensation for the damage to his health and a monthly supplementary pension to be paid by the State Treasury. The court observed that he had lost the capacity to work and was disabled in the so-called second degree (an intermediate degree of disability). 

On 11 April 1990 the applicant was granted the first degree status of disability (serious).

In 1990 the monthly supplementary pension was increased to 100 PLN as a result of a friendly settlement between the parties.

In early 1993 the applicant’s father requested the Warsaw Regional Court to increase his son’s pension. On 8 March 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court remitted the case to the Warsaw District Court. Subsequently, six hearings were held in the case.

On 23 June 1994 the Warsaw District Court remitted the applicant’s claim to the Warsaw Regional Court, as the latter had become competent following the increase in the applicant’s claim.

The first hearing in the Warsaw District Court was held nine months later.

On 28 April 1995 the parties’ lawyers asked for an adjournment in order to reach an out-of-court settlement. Their negotiations subsequently failed.

On 1 December 1995 the hearing was adjourned to give the defendant’s lawyer two weeks to prepare his pleadings.

On 23 February 1996 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Supreme Court. On 15 April 1996 he was informed that the case had been placed under the administrative supervision of the President of the Warsaw Regional Court.

On 9 September 1996 the applicant lodged a motion with the Warsaw Regional Court challenging the presiding judge for an alleged lack of impartiality. This motion was dismissed on 18 September 1996.

By a judgment of 14 August 1998, the applicant’s claim was partly dismissed and partly allowed. The applicant appealed. By an order of 2 December 1998, he was requested to submit certain copies of documents for his appeal. This order was left at the applicant’s door. Later, the post office returned it to the court marked “the apartment closed”.

On 29 December 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant’ s appeal for failure to comply with its order of 2 December 1998. On 14 January 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision.

On 26 January 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee of 50 PLN for the procedural appeal, which he did the next day.

On 5 February 1999 the applicant received an order dated 2 February 1999 summoning him to pay 50 PLN in court fees. The applicant requested a meeting with the Head of the Civil Section on 8 February 1999 in order to clarify what the court fee was for. The meeting did not take place as the Head was absent on the date which had been fixed.

By a decision of 29 April 1999, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 29 December 1998, as well as rejecting his appeal on the merits of the case for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

On 16 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to appoint a lawyer under the legal aid scheme with a view to lodging a cassation appeal against the decision of 29 April 1999.

On 22 June 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed this request, but the lawyer was not appointed until 13 August 1999.

In the meantime, on 5 August 1999 the Court of Appeal rejected the cassation appeal against the decision of 29 December 1998 for not having been presented by a lawyer as required by law.

On 20 August 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the decision of 5 August 1999 with the Supreme Court in order to reinstate the term for lodging the cassation appeal. The cassation appeal itself was submitted to the Supreme Court on 30 August 1999.

By a decision of 7 December 1999, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 5 August 1999 for having been reached without due consideration of the applicant’s pending legal aid application.

On 3 October 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 29 December 1998 and 29 April 1999 for procedural defects.

By a letter of 16 February 2001, the Warsaw Court of Appeal informed the applicant that the next hearing in the appellate proceedings would be held on 16 March 2001.

On 29 March 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 14 August 1998. The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 June 2001.

On 2 July 2001 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

The proceedings are apparently still pending before the Supreme Court.  

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. He also invokes Article 14 of the Convention, alleging discrimination due to his political convictions.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning his disability pension, pending since 1993.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant also complains of discrimination due to his political convictions, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms. However, the applicant has provided no substantiation whatsoever of his grievance which, accordingly, must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the civil proceedings to which he is a party have exceeded a reasonable time;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

T.L. Early J.-P. Costa              Deputy Registrar President

[Note1] To be checked.