FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33573/96
by Józef MEHL
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 15 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
MrG. Ress,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrsN. Vajić, Judges,
withMrV. Berger, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 July 1995 by Józef MEHL against Poland and registered on 29 October 1996 under file no. 33573/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1920 and living in Katowice, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In December 1940 the applicant was drafted into the German army (Wehrmacht). In 1943 he was wounded while fighting on the Eastern front and subsequently discharged from service.
On an unspecified date the applicant was granted a war invalidity pension (Kriegsinvalidenrente) by the German Social Security Office (Versorgungsamt) on account of his military service in the German army. He still receives that pension.
On an unspecified date the applicant applied for admission to the Polish Association of Handicapped War Veterans (Związek Inwalidów Wojennych w R.P.). However, his application was rejected since he had not served in either the Polish armed forces or any of the Allied armies.
On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Polish Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to grant him the status of a handicapped war veteran (ustalenie inwalidztwa wojennego). On 20 July 1989 the Board refused the applicant’s request. It pointed out that the applicant had not applied for either an invalidity pension or any other invalidity benefits but had merely requested that he be granted the status of a handicapped war veteran. Moreover, the Board considered that the applicant could not be awarded such status since he had not shown that he had served in either the Polish armed forces or any other Allied armies during the Second World War, and it was only in respect of persons having served in these armies that such status could be granted.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an appeal against the decision of the Social Security Board. He pointed out that he was a war invalid and was receiving on that account a war invalidity pension from German authorities. Moreover, the applicant stated that he sought the status of a handicapped war veteran in order to gain admission to the Polish Association of Handicapped War Veterans.
On 6 September 1989 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It considered that under the applicable legal provisions the applicant could not be granted the status of a handicapped war veteran since he had not served in either the Polish armed forces or any other Allied armies during the Second World War.
In a letter of 5 July 1992 the President of the Polish Social Security Board responded to the inquiry of the Ombudsman concerning the applicant’s eligibility for the status of a handicapped war veteran. He stated that the inspection of the applicant’s case-file showed that he was not eligible for the status of a handicapped war veteran for legal reasons regardless of his medical condition. In particular, the applicant had not served in either the Polish armed forces or any of the Allied armies. The applicable legislation did not provide for the award of the status to the former Wehrmacht soldiers. It followed that the Social Security Board was not in a position to assist the applicant in his efforts to gain admission to the Polish Association of Handicapped War Veterans.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention because the refusal to grant him the status of a handicapped war veteran was based on the fact that he had served in the German army, whereas those who served in any of the Allied armed forces are eligible for such status.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention because the refusal to grant him the status of a handicapped war veteran was based on the fact that he had served in the German army, whereas those who served in any of the Allied armed forces are eligible for such status. Article 14 provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The Court firstly observes that the facts complained of relate in part to a period prior to 1 May 1993. Poland recognised the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights 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”. According to Article 6 of Protocol No. 11 this limitation shall remain valid for the jurisdiction of the Court under that Protocol. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
The Court further considers that it is not necessary to establish whether events which took place before 1 May 1993 gave rise to a continuing situation after that date, since in any event Article 14 of the Convention only prohibits discrimination with respect to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. However, it notes that the right to the status of a handicapped war veteran is not among the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Accordingly, this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Comm. HR, no. 11278/84, dec. 1.7.1985, D. R. 43, p. 216).
It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Vincent BergerMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy