Communicated on 3 May 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 19958/12
Dariusz MOROZ
against Poland
lodged on 27 March 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dariusz Moroz, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Suwałki.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant has been totally deaf since 2002. He also suffers from other illnesses, in particular a spine condition for which surgery has been scheduled. He also suffers from laryngological and urological conditions.
Between 1997 and 2010 the applicant received a disability benefit owing to a temporary incapacity to work.
On 15 July 2010 he applied for a permanent disability benefit owing to a total incapacity to work (renta z tytułu całkowitej niezdolności do pracy).
On 5 and 19 August 2010 doctors at the Social Security Board issued opinions that the applicant had only been temporarily incapable of working.
On 7 September 2010 the Białystok Social Security Board dismissed his benefit application. The board extended his temporary disability benefit until 30 September 2013.
The applicant appealed to a court. It appears that he applied for and obtained an exemption from court fees. The applicant disputed the medical opinions of the Board doctors as they contradicted his medical history and the opinions of the doctors who had been treating him.
The applicant addressed written submissions to the court. He argued that the Social Security Board doctors and those appointed by the court to examine him had not tried to communicate with him. He could not understand their questions or reply to them. In one of his submissions the applicant further explained that his deafness meant that he would not be able to participate in a hearing but would continue communicating with the court in writing. He asked the court to proceed with the examination of his case in his absence but to inform him of any decisions taken.
On 23 March 2011 the Suwałki Regional Court dismissed his appeal. The court relied on further medical opinions which had confirmed only a partial incapacity to work, until 30 September 2013. The judgment was given at a public hearing. The applicant was notified of the date of the hearing but did not appear. The court did not notify him that a judgment had been delivered.
In June 2011 the applicant went to the court building and enquired about his case. He was informed that the judgment had been given on 23 March 2011.
The applicant applied for leave to request a reasoned copy of the judgment out of time with the intention to appeal against it. He further applied for a legal aid lawyer. He argued that he had not been able to represent himself effectively in the proceedings without a lawyer. He also indicated that his only income had been a disability benefit amounting to 500 Polish zlotys, which had prevented him from hiring a lawyer.
On 22 June 2011 the Suwałki Regional Court allowed his request for leave to receive a reasoned copy of the judgment out of time. The court noted that the applicant had prior to the hearing requested to be notified of any judgment given in his case, which had been a justified request given his communication difficulties. At the same time, the court dismissed his application for a legal aid lawyer. The court considered that the applicant had been able to clearly formulate his written submissions and that the nature of the case had not been such as to necessitate the participation of a lawyer. The case had not been complicated and the examination of the medical evidence had any in any event been the task of the court. The court did not examine the applicant’s financial situation in depth because it considered that even if he had qualified for legal aid on that ground a lawyer had not been necessary as the case had not been complex.
The applicant appealed against that decision. He argued that he was poor, had no family and needed a lawyer to understand the proceedings which, in his view, had not been simple.
On 15 July 2011 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the refusal to appoint him a legal aid lawyer.
On 3 August 2011 the applicant received a reasoned copy of the judgment of 23 March 2011. The applicant lodged an appeal against it. In his appeal he reiterated his submissions about the permanence of his illnesses, which made it impossible for him to work.
The appellate court scheduled a hearing for 16 November 2011 and informed the applicant. The applicant did not appear at the hearing, in which the court issued a judgment to dismiss his appeal. The court did not notify the applicant that a judgment had been given.
On 13 December 2011 the applicant enquired about the state of the proceedings. In reply he received the operative part of the judgment of 16 November 2011.
On 27 December 2001 the applicant requested that the court prepare written reasons for that judgment. He was informed in reply that the judgment was final as the time-limit for requesting a reasoned copy of the judgment had elapsed.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Under Article 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it stood at the material time, persons exempted from court fees were able to request legal aid. Article 117 § 5 provided that the court had to grant that request if it considered that the participation of a lawyer in the case was necessary.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention about the refusal to appoint a legal aid lawyer for him, which led to the proceedings being unfair. Because of a lack of professional representation, the applicant, who is totally deaf, was prevented from participating effectively in the proceedings, defending his rights and making an effective appeal against the judgment. The facts of the case also show that he was discriminated against on the basis of his handicap.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected?
Reference is made to the refusal of the domestic courts to appoint a legal aid lawyer for the applicant, who is deaf.
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his deafness, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy