Communicated on 5 January 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 60477/12 Mieczys Å‚ aw GROBELNY against Poland lodged on 11 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mieczys Å‚ aw Grobelny , is a Polish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Lubniewice .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a farmer insured in the Farmers ’ Social Security Fund ( Kasa Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego ) . From 1 February 1995 to 31 March 2008 he received a disability pension for being totally unfit for work.

On 16 May 2008 the Farmers ’ Social Security Fund, having had the applicant examined, gave a decision and found that he was not totally unfit for work. He was consequently refused any social benefits.

The applicant appealed.

On 9 July 2009 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged a further appeal.

On 26 November 2009 the Szczecin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The courts found that the forensic experts of several specialties had properly and exhaustively examined the applicant and that his appeals had just been based on his subjective conviction that he had been unfit for work.

When the case was examined by the court of second instance the applicant underwent an operation.

After termination of the judicial proceedings the applicant again requested the Fund to grant him a disability pension.

On 6 April 2010 the Fund found the applicant totally unfit for work and, relying on Section 22 § 2 of the Farmers ’ Social Security Act of 20 December 1990, granted the pension with effect from 19 January 2010, the day on which the request was lodged. The forensic experts who examined the applicant for the purpose of this set of proceedings found that the applicant had been unfit for work throughout the whole period starting from the end of March 2008, that is, from the day on which he stopped receiving the pension granted previously. They also admitted that they had not had the complete medical documentation when they had examined the applicant in the first set of proceedings in which the pension was refused.

The applicant considered that he should have been paid the disability pension for the whole period of his incapacity for work, starting from March 2008. He also sought a reimbursement of expenses for a medical examination which confirmed his work incapacity. Relying on Article 417 of the Civil Code he lodged a claim for compensation with civil courts.

On 29 February 2012 the Sul Ä™ cin District Court refused to grant compensation finding that the activities of the state representative (the Fund) were not illegal ( bezprawne ) . The applicant appealed.

On 29 June 2012 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court dismissed his appeal. It shared the view expressed by the first-instance court as regards the lawfulness of the Found ’ s activity. The Regional Court additionally noted that the compensation could be granted on the ground of Article 417 2 of the Civil Code even though the activities of the state representative were legal, but only for loss of the applicant ’ s personal rights ( szkoda na osobie ) . The court however refused compensation also on this ground, holding that the applicant ’ s loss was of a purely pecuniary nature.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section 22 § 2 of the the Farmers ’ Social Security Act of 20 December 1990; ( Ustawa o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników ) reads as follows:

“A right to a disability pension which expired because of termination of the state of total incapacity for work shall be reinstated if within 18 months from the date of expiry of that right the applicant is found again to be unfit for work.”

Article 417 § 1 of the Civil Code reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“1. The State Treasury, municipality or another legal person wielding public power by virtue of the law shall be liable for damage caused by an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of that power.”

Article 417 § 1 of the Civil Code reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“If by a lawful act [of a state official] a personal damage was caused ( szkoda na osobie ) the harmed person may demand full or partial compensation and just ‑ satisfaction if the circumstances, in particular his incapacity for work or his difficult financial situation, indicate that this is required by the principles of equity.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 35 of the Convention without further explanation, but in essence he complains about the refusal to grant him compensation for the period of 21 months when, in spite of his recognised incapacity for work, he remained without any financial support from the State.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the refusal to grant the applicant compensation amount to disproportionate interference with the applicant ’ s property rights, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ?

Reference is made to the fact that although the applicant had been unfit for work, he remained without any social benefits for 21 months and was not compensated for this loss.

2. Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies? Is the new assessment of his state of health a fact which could have justified a reopening of the proceedings in his case?