Communicated on 16 February 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 45909/17
Henryk Jan FURMAN
against Poland
lodged on 20 June 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Henryk Jan Furman, is a Polish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Jabłoń. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Szczygielski, lawyer practising in Lublin.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 March 2013 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for compensation and disability pension on account of a work accident which he had allegedly suffered during his detention in Zamość Prison.
On 31 May 2016 the Zamość District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed the action. The court established that the applicant had health issues prior to the alleged accident on 9 March 2012 and that he had reported the accident only on 13 April 2013. No one had witnessed the accident and witnesses who might have had any knowledge of it, gave contradicting statements.
On 8 December 2016 the Zamość Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held an appellate hearing of which the applicant’s lawyer was informed by post on 14 December 2016. Consequently, the applicant and his lawyer were not present at the hearing. The respondent’s lawyer was present and argued the case. Under Article 376 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks Postępowania Cywilego) an appellate hearing shall take place irrespective of the absence of one or both parties to the proceedings.
On 22 December 2016 the Zamość Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment and charged the applicant with PLN 1,000 of court fees. The reasoning of this judgment has not been submitted to the Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that his lawyer was impeded from representing him in his civil case against the State Treasury because he was informed of the date of the appellate hearing after the hearing had taken place.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Have the proceedings in the applicant’s civil case satisfied the requirements of fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that the applicant and his lawyer were not present at the appellate hearing held on 11 June 2007 whereas the adversary, representing the State Treasury was present at that hearing and made submissions to the court (see, mutatis mutandis, Siwiec v. Poland, no. 28095/08, § 45-57, 3 July 2012 and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy