FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45947/10
Józef ARTYMIAK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 November 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2010,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Józef Artymiak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Lublin.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Justyna Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against a bailiff and the Lublin Regional Court.
4. On 10 August 2009 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed his claim.
5. On 24 November 2009 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
6. On 5 January 2010 the applicant requested the court to assign a legal aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal with a Supreme Court.
7. On 6 January 2010 the applicant was granted legal aid for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal.
8. By a letter of 7 January 2010 the Lublin Court of Appeal notified the Lublin Bar Association about the decision of 6 January 2010. That notification was served on the Bar Association on 8 January 2010 and transmitted to the applicant for information.
9. On 13 January 2010 the Lublin Bar Association assigned a lawyer to the case.
10. On 28 January 2010 the legal aid lawyer prepared an opinion refusing to lodge a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case.
11. On 4 February 2010 the applicant was served with the legal aid counsel’s opinion who found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal on the applicant’s behalf.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
12. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the legal aid in cassation proceedings is stated in the Court judgment in the case of Siałkowska v. Poland (no. 8932/05).
COMPLAINTS
13. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the refusal of the legal aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court deprived him of access to the Supreme Court.
14. The applicant complained also of the courts’ assessment of the evidence and interpretation of the law and challenges the outcome of the proceedings.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of the article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of access to a court
15. The applicant complained that, as a result of the legal aid lawyer’s refusal to draft a cassation appeal, he had been denied effective access to the Supreme Court.
16. In reply to a request for information by the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant informed the Court that the time-limit for the lodging of a cassation appeal had expired on 4 February 2010. However, it emerges from the Government observations dated 12 July 2012, in particular from the attachment no. 2 to these observations (acknowledgment of receipt by applicant of the second instance judgment of 24 November 2009), that the written grounds of the second instance judgment of 24 November 2009 together with the instruction on how to lodge a cassation appeal were served on the applicant on 24 December 2010. On that date the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run. Thus, this time-limit expired 20 days later than stated by the applicant (namely on 24 February 2010, not on 4 February 2010).
17. In light of the above the Court notes that the applicant gave to the Court the incorrect information as to the date when the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run in his case. In fact, the applicant, after being served with the legal aid lawyer’s opinion concerning the prospects for appealing in his case, had 20 days to hire a lawyer of his own choosing in order to lodge a cassation appeal in his name.
18. The Court further observes that the time left to the applicant gave him a realistic opportunity of having his case brought to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the refusal of the legal aid lawyer cannot be considered as a denial of access to the Supreme Court.
19. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Alleged violation of the article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unfairness of the proceedings
20. The applicant complained, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings had been unfair in that the courts had wrongly assessed evidence and erred in establishing the facts of the case.
21. However, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
22. In the present case the Court notes that the applicant did not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant courts. Indeed, his complaints are limited to a challenge to the result of the proceedings. Assessing the circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court finds no indication that the impugned proceedings were conducted unfairly.
23. It follows that this part of the application 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
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy