FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42083/98
by Eugeniusz MIANOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 November 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 September 1997,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Eugeniusz Mianowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1950. He is presently detained in the Brzeg prison. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The proceedings concerning compensation for stolen belongings
(a) The beginning of litigation
On 22 November 1991 the applicant lodged with the Człuchów District Court an action against the State Treasury. He claimed 570,000 old zlotys (PLZ) in compensation for his belongings which had been stolen in December 1989 while he had been detained in the Czarne prison. The applicant contended that the theft had been committed by the prison officers who had intervened in order to end the riots in the prison.
On 27 November 1991 the Człuchów District Court exempted the applicant from the court fees and rejected his request for legal aid considering that the case did not call for the participation of counsel.
(b) The staying of the proceedings
On 25 February 1992 the District Court stayed the proceedings. It considered that, since the prosecution had initiated criminal proceedings against the prison officers involved in ending the riots in the Czarne prison and the applicant had been listed as one of the victims, the outcome of those proceedings might be relevant to the adjudication of the applicant’s claim.
On 3 May 1993 the applicant increased his claim to PLZ 31,720,000.
(c) The resumption of the proceedings
On 26 July 1994 the District Court annulled its earlier decision to join the action concerning the compensation for stolen belongings with the action concerning the compensation to injuries (see section 2 below) and decided to resume the proceedings concerning the former action.
On an unspecified date the Człuchów District Court requested the Zabrze District Court to take evidence from the applicant who was detained in a prison located within the jurisdiction of that court.
On 19 January 1995 the Człuchów District Court requested the Łęczyca District Court to take evidence from several witnesses for the applicant who were detained in a prison situated within the jurisdiction of that court. However, the Łęczyca District Court was unable to comply with the request as the witnesses had already been released from the prison.
(d) The first hearing
The first hearing was held by the Człuchów District Court on 3 February 1995. It was adjourned since the applicant had not been properly served with the summons. During the next hearing, which was held on 17 February 1995, the court heard the witnesses requested by the applicant.
In the meantime, the Człuchów District Court on several occasions requested other district courts to take evidence from the witnesses for the applicant, who were detained in prisons located within the jurisdiction of those courts. However, the requests were declined because the witnesses could not be heard since they had been transferred to other prisons.
During the hearing held on 7 March 1995 the Człuchów District Court heard a witness, who according to the applicant’s submissions had taken from him his belongings during the riots in the Czarne prison.
On 21 April 1995 the Człuchów District Court received from the Słupsk District Court evidence taken from one of the witnesses. On the same date the Człuchów District Court also received a statement taken from the applicant by the Jastrzębie District Court.
No hearing was held in 1996.
During the hearing held on 25 February 1997 the Człuchów District Court decided to request the Warsaw District Court to take evidence from one of the witnesses, a certain S.W. As the Warsaw District Court was not responding to that request, the Człuchów District Court renewed it on several occasions.
On 16 May 1997 the President of the Człuchów District Court replied to the applicant’s inquiry about the progress in the proceedings, informing him that immediately after the Warsaw District Court submitted evidence taken from S.W., a date of the next hearing would be fixed. He also expressed the opinion that although the conclusion of all the proceedings resulting from the riots in the Czarne prison would serve the proper administration of justice, it was not possible to state the date on which the proceedings in the applicant’s case would end.
On 16 June 1997 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case. On 14 August 1997 the Ombudsman transmitted the complaint to the President of the Człuchów District Court. In a letter of 18 August 1997 the President informed the applicant that the date for hearing S.W. had been fixed by the Warsaw District Court for 5 September 1997 and that the next hearing before the Człuchów District Court would be scheduled immediately after it received evidence taken from that witness.
In a letter of 3 February 1998 the President of the Civil Section of the Człuchów District Court informed the President of the Słupsk Regional Court, who had inquired about the length of the proceedings in the case, that the Warsaw District Court still had not taken evidence from S.W.
On 5 February 1998 the President of the Słupsk Regional Court responded to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings submitted on 19 January 1998. In particular, he informed the applicant about the difficulties faced by the Człuchów District Court in taking evidence from the witnesses who were being transferred between different prisons and whose addresses were therefore difficult to establish. He also pointed out that the Człuchów District Court was not responsible for the delay in hearing one of the witnesses by the Warsaw District Court and promised that the latter court would be again requested to take evidence from that witness.
The hearing held on 26 June 1998 was adjourned.
In a letter of 25 August 1998 the applicant inquired of the President of the Człuchów District Court about the state of the proceedings in his case. On 31 August 1998 the President informed the applicant that the hearing held on 26 June 1998 had been adjourned because he had not been served with the summonses, since the court had not been informed about his transfer to another prison. Moreover, a hearing fixed for 4 September 1998 would also be adjourned for that reason. However, the applicant averred that he had remained in the same prison at the time when both hearings had been adjourned and he had not been served with the summonses.
(e) The trial court’s judgment
On 18 September 1998 the Człuchów District Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim.
The applicant appealed but on 10 March 1999 the Człuchów District Court rejected his appeal. The court considered that the appeal did not comply with formal requirements for lodging it. The applicant filed with the District Court a complaint about the rejection of his appeal but the court dismissed it.
Subsequently, the applicant challenged before the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) the District Court’s decision to reject his appeal. On 16 November 1999 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision rejecting the applicant’s appeal and allowed him to lodge an appeal out of time.
On 18 November 1999 the case-file was returned to the first-instance court so that it could prepare reasons for its judgment. On 29 December 1999 the file was returned to the Regional Court.
(f) The appellate court’s judgment
The applicant lodged an appeal but on 28 January 2000 the Regional Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed it.
2. The proceedings concerning compensation for injuries
On 11 March 1992 the applicant filed before the Człuchów District Court another action against the State Treasury in which he claimed PLZ 10,000,000 in compensation for injuries he had sustained during the riots in the Czarne prison as a result of the assault by the prison officers.
On 14 April 1992 the court stayed the proceedings in this case for the same reasons which had led to the staying of the proceedings concerning compensation for stolen belongings.
Apparently, the proceedings are still pending.
3. The censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights
On 23 August 1999 the European Court of Human Rights sent to the applicant a letter enclosing a copy of the respondent Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 6 October 1999 the applicant submitted to the Court his reply to the Government’s observations together with a cutting of the Court’s envelope sent to him on 23 August 1999. The envelope bears the following three stamps in Polish: “Racibórz Prison, received on 02.09.1999, no. 15814”; “Katowice Regional Court, 16/18 Andrzeja Street, received on 07.09.1999” and “ Censored” (Ocenzurowano).
On 30 November 1999 the Court received the applicant’s letter of 23 November 1999. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the stamp “Censored” (Cenzurowano) and the following handwriting: “SO K-e XVI 207/99”.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences concerning the censorship of correspondence read as follows:
Article 103 § 1
“Convicts (...) have a right to lodge complaints with organs established by international treaties concerning the protection of human rights ratified by the Republic of Poland. Correspondence in those cases of persons deprived of liberty shall be sent to the addressee without delay and shall not be censored.”
Article 209
“The provisions concerning the execution of sentences shall apply accordingly to the execution of detention on remand, subject to changes resulting from this chapter.”
Article 214 § 1
“Unless exceptions are provided for in the present Chapter, a detainee shall enjoy at least the same rights as are secured to a convicted person serving a sentence of imprisonment under ordinary regime in a closed prison. No restrictions shall be applied to him except such as are necessary to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to maintain order and security in a remand centre and to prevent demoralisation of detainees.”
Article 217 § 1
“... a detainee’s correspondence shall be censored by [the authority at whose disposal he remains], unless the authority decides otherwise.”
Article 242 § 5
“The prohibition of censorship shall also mean the prohibition of acquainting oneself with the content of the letter.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning compensation for stolen belongings. He also made this complaint with respect to the proceedings concerning compensation for injuries.
Furthermore, the applicant complained under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention about the censorship of his correspondence.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings concerning (i) compensation for stolen belongings and (ii) compensation for injuries. The former proceedings began on 22 November 1991 and ended on 28 January 2000. They have therefore lasted about eight years and two months, out of which nearly six years and nine months are within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis. The latter proceedings began on 11 March 1992 and apparently they are still pending. They have therefore already lasted ten years and eight months out of which about nine years and six months are within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the censorship of his correspondence. Article 8, in so far as relevant, provides:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for ... his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The Government submitted that the case did not disclose a breach of Article 8. With reference to Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1997, they admitted that domestic legislation did not provide for the censorship of detainees’ correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights. However, such correspondence was sent through domestic authorities and even if it was opened there would be no interference with its content and it would be forwarded to the addressee without any delay.
Furthermore, the Government averred that there was no evidence that the Court’s letter of 23 August 1999 was censored. The letter was delivered to the Racibórz prison where the prison administration transmitted it to the Katowice Regional Court before giving it to the applicant. The Government further submitted that “the fact of stamping the envelope from the European Court of Human Rights by the Katowice Regional Court was unintentional and indicated nothing but the fact that the letter at issue ‘passed through’ the court or the registry staff stamped the envelope by mistake.” Moreover, it was possible that the stamp “Censored” was falsified.
Finally, the Government submitted that there was no evidence that the letter of 23 August 1999 was opened in the Katowice Regional Court, as its first page did not bear the stamp “Censored”, whereas it was “a common practice” to stamp both the envelope and the first page.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this complaint raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. The Court concludes, therefore, that it is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.
3. Finally, the applicant complained that the censorship of his correspondence was in breach of Article 34 of the Convention, which provides:
“The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.”
The Government disagreed with the applicant’s claim. They pointed out that the Court’s letter of 23 August 1999 had been delivered to the applicant without delay. Moreover, the applicant did not suffer any prejudice in the presentation of his application to the Court.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the present complaint should be examined together with the merits of the application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy