AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 28232/95
by Miroslaw GRODECKI
against Poland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 16 October 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 12 December 1994
by Miroslaw GRODECKI against Poland and registered on 17 August 1995
under file No. 28232/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1931, is a retired
engineer, residing in Warsaw.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows:
From 1950 the applicant worked at various engineering posts at
the State Railways. He retired in 1990 from the post in the Railways'
engineering design branch, retaining an entitlement to reduced prices
of railway tickets and to use the medical care of the Railways' medical
services as a part of his retirement benefits.
On 1 January 1992 the Railways' engineering design branch was
detached from the general structure of the Railways and given a
separate status.
On 20 June 1992 the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport
Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices was enacted. It provided in
Article 7 that entitlements to the tickets at reduced prices were in
principle abolished, with certain exceptions only. It further
invalidated relevant provisions of numerous industrial collective
agreements, concerning many categories of civil servants. Its Article
8 provided that the public transport companies could maintain such
entitlement for their employees and retired employees, should they wish
to do so.
On 12 January 1993 the State Railways' Director General issued
an Order No. 4, which maintained the entitlement to reduced prices of
the tickets for its retired employees, but took this entitlement away
from the retired employees of the Railways' engineering design branch.
The Order further took away the entitlement to use the Railways'
medical services for this group of retired employees in view of the
fact that in 1991 this branch had been detached from the general
structure of the Railways and given a separate status.
On 17 November 1993 the Ombudsman requested that the
Constitutional Court (Trybunal Konstytucyjny) examine whether
Articles 7 and 9 of the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport Free
of Charge or at Reduced Prices were compatible with the Constitution,
in particular its Articles 1, 67 paras. 1 and 2 and 70 paras. 1 and
2 (1). The Ombudsman further requested that the Court determine
whether the Order No. 4 of 12 January 1993 was compatible with certain
statutes and in particular with Article 8 of the Act on the Entitlement
to Public Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices, and with
Articles 1, 67 paras. 1 and 2 and 70 paras. 1 and 2 (1) of the
Constitution. The National Committee of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union
submitted a similar request.
On 21 June 1994 the Constitutional Court held a hearing. The
Court heard the representatives of the Ombudsman and of the
"Solidarnosc" Trade Union, of the Parliament, of the Ministry of
Transport and of the Prosecutor General.
In the judgment of 28 June 1994 the Constitutional Court declared
that the impugned provisions of the Act on the Entitlement to Public
Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices and of the Director
General's Order No. 4 of 12 January 1993 were compatible with the
Constitution.
Relevant domestic law
Article 33 of the Polish Constitution of 1952 which remains in
force by virtue of Article 77 of the Constitutional Act of
17 October 1992 provides that the Constitutional Court gives rulings
on the conformity of legislation with the Constitution. It also
promulgates binding interpretations of law.
Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitutional Court Act provide an
exhaustive list of institutions who can request the Court to decide
whether a particular regulation is compatible with the Constitution or
with statutes. This list includes the President, the Presidium of the
Parliament, the parliamentary commissions, a group of fifty members of
the Parliament, the Presidium of the Senate, the commissions of the
Senate, a group of thirty senators, the State Tribunal, the Government,
the Prime Minister, the Ombudsman, the President of the Highest Audit
Chamber, the President of the Supreme Court, the President of the
Supreme Administrative Chamber and the General Prosecutor. Such
requests can also be submitted by the municipalities and national
headquarters of certain associations.
There is no individual constitutional complaint to the Court
under Polish law as a remedy against decisions of the courts or
administrative authorities, nor can individual citizens submit requests
for rulings on the compatibility of laws with the Constitution.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that
his right to life was breached in that he lost an entitlement to
medical care in the railway health services.
He complains under Article 4 of the Convention that he worked in
the State Railways mostly for the sake of the additional entitlements
which compensated for the low salary and that due to the decisions
concerned his work acquired retrospectively a character of forced
labour.
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were unfair, and
about their outcome.
The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention that
the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court amounted to
discrimination against the employees of the Railways' engineering
branch as they lost their lawfully acquired rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the
Convention that his right to life was breached in that he lost an
entitlement to medical care in railway health services.
Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one
shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the
execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction
of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."The
Commission observes that this provision of the Convention
does not guarantee a right to certain specific health
services. Moreover, in the circumstances of the case no
loss of or even danger to life or limb is involved.
Therefore the situation complained of does not amount to a
breach of the applicant's right to life within the meaning
of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Commission. It follows that
this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant complains under Article 4 (Art. 4) of the
Convention that he worked in the State Railways mostly for the sake of
the additional entitlements which compensated for the low salary and
that due to the decisions concerned his work acquired retrospectively
a character of forced labour.
Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,
provides:
"2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory
labour."
Insofar as the applicant complains that as a result of the
impugned decisions his work acquired retrospectively a character of
forced labour, even assuming that such retroactive effect of the
decision concerned could be considered, the Commission recalls that
Poland recognised the competence of the Commission to receive
individual applications "from any person, non-governmental organisation
or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the
rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event
occurring after 30 April 1993". In accordance with this limitation in
the Polish declaration, the Commission is not competent to examine
complaints relating to violations of the Convention by acts, decisions
or events that have occurred prior to this date. Therefore this
complaint is outside its competence ratione temporis and must be
rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
3. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13) of
the Convention that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court
were unfair, and about their outcome.
The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention. Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in its
relevant part reads:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ..."
The Commission recalls that the applicability of Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention depends on whether the proceedings at issue
concern the determination of "civil rights and obligations". The
Commission observes that under Polish law an individual does not have
standing in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. In the
present case the applicant was not a party to the proceedings before
this Court and the law did not allow him to be a party in such
proceedings. Therefore the proceedings at issue did not concern the
applicant's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article
6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Consequently, this provision
is inapplicable thereto.
It follows that part of the application is incompatible ratione
materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
4. The applicant complains under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention that the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court
amounted to discrimination against the employees of the Railways'
engineering branch as they lost their lawfully acquired rights.
The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) has no
independent existence, but only complements the other substantive
provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, since it has effect
solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by those
provisions (see Eur. Court HR, Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October
1987, p. 17, para. 36). The Commission considers that no separate
issue arises under this provision of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy