AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25084/94
by Feliks KRZUS
against Poland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 January 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 7 February 1994
by Feliks KRZUS against Poland and registered on 6 September 1994 under
file No. 25084/94;
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 facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be
summarised as follows:
The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1926, is a retired
mariner, residing in Gdynia in Poland.
The applicant was afflicted by a disease. On 8 February 1990 the
Regional Inspector of Public Health refused to acknowledge the
occupational character of the disease. On 28 February 1990 the
applicant appealed against this decision to the General Inspector of
Public Health.
On 28 November 1991 the applicant complained to the Supreme
Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny) about the General
Inspector's failure to decide on his appeal. On 2 December 1991 the
General Inspector of Public Health dismissed the applicant's appeal.
Subsequently the Supreme Administrative Court twice asked the
applicant to indicate whether he wished to uphold his complaint about
the General Inspector's failure to issue a decision, or to withdraw
it. On 4 June 1994 the applicant informed the Court that he wished
to uphold his complaint of 28 November 1991 since the General Inspector
had meanwhile dismissed his claim.
On 30 July 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to
discontinue the proceedings with regard to the applicant's complaint
about the General Inspector's failure to issue a decision as it had
become devoid of purpose.
On 1 March 1993 the Regional Inspector of Public Health, in reply
to a letter by the applicant of 15 February 1993, informed him that,
as he had not filed an appeal against the final decision of
2 December 1991 within the applicable time-limit, no further appeal was
possible against this decision.
On 17 March 1993 the applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme
Administrative Court against the decision of 2 December 1991 and
requested reinstatement into the proceedings.
On 2 August 1993 the applicant filed a memorial with the Supreme
Administrative Court again requesting reinstatement into the
proceedings. The applicant contended that his disease was of an
occupational character and that the decisions of the Regional and
General Inspectors had been wrong.
On 30 December 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the
request for reinstatement into the proceedings together with the
applicant's appeal. The Court found that the applicant had failed to
file an appeal against the decision of the General Inspector of
2 December 1991 within the applicable time-limit. The Court considered
that reinstatement into the proceedings could be granted only if an
appropriate request had been made immediately after an impediment to
file an appeal had ceased to exist. Thus, the applicant should have
requested the reinstatement into the proceedings immediately after he
had learned about the Court's decision of 30 July 1992 to discontinue
the proceedings. However, he had only done so after a significant
delay.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
the Supreme Administrative Court twice declined to deal with the merits
of his complaint. He submits that the authorities failed to deal with
his case within a reasonable time as the proceedings lasted from
February 1990 until 30 December 1993.
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 read together
with Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention that the proceedings were
unfair as the authorities concerned failed to consider his arguments
about the harmful character of his work. He further submits that the
authorities' decisions were wrong.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court twice declined to deal
with the merits of his complaints. He submits that the authorities
failed to deal with his case within a reasonable time, as the
proceedings lasted from February 1990 until 30 December 1993. The
applicant further complains that the authorities failed to consider his
arguments and issued a wrong decision.
The Commission has examined these complaints under Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which states insofar as relevant:
" 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 (...)"
a) Insofar as the applicant's complaints relate to a period prior
to 1 May 1993, 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 by Poland of the rights
recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event
occurring after 30 April 1993".
It follows that this part of the application is outside the
competence ratione temporis of the Commission and therefore
incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
b) In respect to the events after 1 May 1993 the Commission observes
that the decisions complained of concerned a request for the
reinstatement into the proceedings. However, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention does not apply to proceedings which determine whether or not
a person should be reinstated into previous proceedings (see mutatis
mutandis No.7761/77, Dec. 8.5.77, D.R. 14 p.171).
It follows that the remainder of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy