FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 29696/96 by Maciej DORUCHOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ) sitting on 16 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr M. Pellonpää, President , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo, Mr L. Caflisch, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr V. Butkevych, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs S. Botoucharova , judges ,

and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 16 July 1995 by Maciej Doruchowski against Poland and registered on 4 January 1996 under file no. 29696/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1951 and living in Warsaw , Poland .

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

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant was the secretary of a political party called the “Confederation of Republicans” ( Konfederacja Republikanów ) . On 21 January 1994 the party was registered in the register of political parties kept by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki ) .

On 22 December 1994 the applicant and two other persons convened a meeting, during which they adopted a resolution appointing a new party chairman and a new treasurer.

On 5 January 1995 the other group of members, that is, the party’s chairman, one of the deputy chairmen, the president of the Political Council and the treasurer, held a meeting. They adopted a resolution dismissing the applicant from his function of the party’s secretary and appointed another person.

Both groups of members filed motions with the Warsaw Regional Court , requesting that their resolutions be entered in the court’s register of political parties and that the previous entries containing the list of persons authorised to represent the party be amended. Each group maintained that the minutes of the meeting held by their opponents had been forged.

On 17 February 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the request filed by the applicant and his group and allowed the application submitted by their opponents. The court found that the resolution passed by the latter was valid since it had been adopted by the current chairman, the deputy chairman and the chairman of the Political Council. Referring to the resolution adopted by the applicant’s group, the court pointed out that it was of no legal effect as it had been adopted by the applicant acting as the secretary, the other deputy chairman and a third person who was not entitled to represent the party. Accordingly, the court struck the applicant’s name off the list of persons authorised to represent the party.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision. On 31 May 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (SÄ…d Apelacyjny ) rejected the appeal, finding that there was no appeal in law against the contested decision.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

At the material time the status of political parties was regulated by the Law of 28 July 1990 on Political Parties. Pursuant to Section 4 of that Law, a party acquired legal personality when an application for its registration was allowed. The register of political parties was kept by the Warsaw Regional Court . The relevant entries in the register contained, inter alia, a description of organs of the party and the list of names of persons authorised to represent it.

The Law, as it stood at the time, did not provide for any appeal against a court’s decision amending an entry in the register.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant contests the outcome of the proceedings and submits that they were too lengthy. He also complains that the proceedings were unfair because they were not public, and that certain documents were attached to the case-file after such a delay that he did not have access to them. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have any legal remedy against the decision in question.

THE LAW

1. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant contests the outcome of the proceedings in which the Warsaw Regional Court amended the entry in the register of political parties. He also submits that those proceedings were too lengthy. Lastly, the applicant maintains that the proceedings were unfair because they were not public, and that certain documents were attached to the case-file after such a delay that he did not have access to them.

The Court must first ascertain whether Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings complained of. In that respect the Court notes that it is evident that those proceedings did not involve the determination of any criminal charge against the applicant and that it is therefore necessary to establish whether Article 6 § 1 is applicable under its “civil head”.

The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 provides:

“ 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 established by law.”

The Court reiterates that, in accordance with the principles emerging from its case-law, it must establish whether the proceedings in issue concerned a “dispute” (“ contestation” ) over a “right” which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. That dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, lastly, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, among other authorities, Le Calvez v. France judgment of 29 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1899, § 56).

In respect of the present case, the Court observes that the proceedings concerned the amendment of the entry in the register of political parties, an entry which listed the names of persons authorised to represent the political party to which the applicant at the material time belonged. The Court further observes that it can be said that the outcome of the proceedings was related to the question whether or not the applicant should retain the function of secretary of that party.

However, this fact does not bring these proceedings within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention. On the contrary, it demonstrates that the object of the proceedings was not to determine the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations” but to resolve the issue of who should represent a political party.

It is true that, as the Court has already noted above, the result of the proceedings can be said to have been decisive for the question whether the applicant was to hold his function in the party and continue to act on behalf of that party. However, the Court considers that the holding of a function in a political party constitutes an aspect of the exercise of political rights, rights which do not fall within the concept of civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis , Eur. Comm. HR, no. 11068/84, Dec. 6.5.1985, D.R. 43, p. 195).

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have any legal remedy against the decision in question.

However, the Court recalls that the right of recourse guaranteed by Article 13 can only relate to a right protected by the Convention (see Eur. Court HR, the Pierre-Bloch v. France judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 2226, § 64).

Accordingly, having regard to its finding in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court finds that Article 13 of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.

It follows that the remainder of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .

Vincent Berger Matti Pellonpää Registrar President