THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 30218/96
by Dobrochna NOWICKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 18 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ.-P. Costa,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, 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 15 November 1994 by Dobrochna Nowicka against Poland and registered on 15 February 1996 under file no. 30218/96;
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 1940 and living in Łódź, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant inherited from her mother a 25% share in a property situated in Łódź at 6 Piotrowska Street. The property consisted of an apartment building and a plot of land. On 18 October 1990 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) appointed the applicant to be the administrator of the property.
Subsequently, the applicant requested the previous administrator of the property, a certain association “Z.W.Z.D.”, to cease all its activities relating to the administration of the property. However, the association ignored her request and continued to collect rent from tenants living in the apartment building. In addition, the applicant challenged the right of a certain Mr H.D. to collect rent from tenants renting business premises located in the building, claiming that his title to a part of the property had been obtained by false pretences. These challenges resulted in an on-going dispute between the applicant on the one side and both the association and Mr H.D. on the other side.
On an unspecified date in January 1991 the applicant was involved in a skirmish with Mr H. D. who took over retail premises located on the property in order to rent them to a certain company “E”. It appears that the police arrived on the scene and subsequently the applicant was prosecuted for causing damage to property and the destruction of certain documents.
On 2 February 1993 the applicant accompanied by two private detectives broke into the office premises situated in the building rented by a company “M”, which was owned by Mr H.D. A burglar alarm was set off and the police arrived at the building. After a brief conversation, the police officers escorted the applicant off the premises. Subsequently, she was charged by the Łódź District Prosecutor with causing damage to property and destroying certain documents.
Furthermore, on 31 March 1993 the Łódź District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) discontinued the investigation of the applicant’s complaint that the association Z.W.Z.D. made it impossible for her to administer the property, considering that it did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence.
On 19 October 1993 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of causing damage to property and destroying documents during the incident in January 1991. The applicant appealed.
On 16 March 1994 the Łódź District Prosecutor refused the applicant’s request to prosecute the police officers who had intervened during an incident which took place on 2 February 1993, considering that they had acted lawfully.
On 18 March 1994 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed her conviction the District Court on 19 October 1993.
In the meantime, on 8 March 1994, Mr H.D., acting through his counsel Mr L.B., brought before the Łódź District Court a private prosecution against the applicant. A private bill of indictment filed by Mr H.D. alleged that the applicant was guilty of criminal libel since, on 19 January 1994, she had sent to a bank, which had given a loan to Mr H.D., a letter stating that he had obtained the loan under false pretences and had been repaying it from income obtained from her property.
During the hearing held on 12 April 1994, counsel for Mr H.D. and the applicant refused to settle the case. The applicant confirmed that on 19 January 1994 she had sent the impugned letter which had led Mr H.D. to bring the private prosecution against her. Counsel for Mr H.D. asked the court to request from the Łódź Psychiatric Clinic (Poradnia Zdrowia Psychicznego) information on whether the applicant was a patient of that clinic and, if so, to instruct it to provide the court with her medical file. The counsel based his request on the fact that, according to his knowledge, the applicant was indeed a patient at that clinic. The applicant denied that she had ever undergone psychiatric treatment and stated that counsel’s submission was slanderous. The court decided that it would consider counsel’s request in camera at a later date, and that it would request information about the applicant’s criminal record and background (wywiad środowiskowy).
On 19 April 1994 the Łódź Psychiatric Clinic informed the District Court in a letter signed by Doctor B.K. that on 23 October 1973 the applicant had visited the clinic and had been diagnosed as schizophrenic.
On 6 May 1994 a police constable Z.A. issued a statement concerning the outcome of the background check, which had been conducted at 4 Sienkiewicza Street where the applicant resided at that time. He concluded, inter alia, that the applicant’s neighbours had a good opinion of her, that she did not abuse alcohol and that she was not involved in any quarrels with her neighbours.
On 11 May 1994 counsel for Mr H.D. requested the Łódź District Court to order an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental health. He also submitted several letters written by the applicant and pointed out that they showed that the applicant had claimed rent from certain tenants occupying retail and office space located on the property, despite the fact that the association “Z.W.Z.D” had been letting out those premises.
On 1 June 1994 the applicant asked the Łódź District Chamber of Doctors (Okręgowa Izba Lekarska) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Doctor B.K. for making a false representation in her letter of 19 April 1994. The applicant contested the contents of that letter claiming that it had been based on fabricated medical records, since she had never visited the Łódź Psychiatric Clinic. The applicant’s requests to investigate the circumstances in which the letter had been issued were rejected by the Łódź District and Regional Prosecutors.
On an unspecified date the Łódź District Court ordered the applicant to report on 10 June 1994 to a psychiatric ward headed by Doctor B.K. in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. The applicant’s appeals and complaints concerning that decision were rejected by the Łódź District and Regional Courts.
On 10 June 1994 the applicant failed to present herself for a psychiatric examination. On an unspecified date the Łódź District Court issued an arrest warrant in order to secure her compliance with its order.
On 25 October 1994 the applicant visited the Łódź-Śródmieście District Police Station (Komenda Rejonowa Policji) in order to file a complaint about a breaking and entry into one of her apartments. However, her complaint was not accepted by the police and she was arrested under the District Court’s warrant. On 26 October 1994 the applicant was transferred to the Łódź Prison No. 1. Her complaints about the decision to detain her were rejected. On 2 November 1994 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination. The psychiatrists who examined the applicant concluded that they could not make a diagnosis on the basis of a single examination, and recommended that the applicant undergo psychiatric observation in a public hospital. They also stated that only if the applicant failed to present herself for observation at the public hospital should she be subjected to observation in a prison hospital. On 3 November 1994 she was released from detention.
On 8 November 1994 the Łódź District Court decided that the applicant should undergo psychiatric observation in a medical establishment (zakład leczniczy). On 23 November 1994 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
On 9 January 1995 the Łódź District Court issued an arrest warrant because of the applicant’s failure to present herself for psychiatric observation at a public hospital. The court considered that the applicant obstructed the criminal proceedings against her since she had not attended the hospital, despite being served with a summons, and because the police were unable to bring her to the hospital.
On 22 February 1995 the Łódź District Court issued a search warrant, considering that the applicant was in hiding since she was not staying at her residence.
On 23 March 1995 the applicant was arrested. On 24 March 1995 she was transferred to prison.
On 29 March 1995 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision to arrest her.
On 4 April 1995 the Łódź District Court dismissed the applicant’s request that she be released from prison. On 19 April 1995 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
Between 19 April and 26 May 1995 the applicant underwent psychiatric observation in the prison hospital at the Łódź Prison No. 2. A medical opinion issued on the basis of that observation concluded that the applicant’s intellectual ability was substantially above average and that she showed no signs of being either mentally ill or retarded. The opinion also stated that she had a paranoid personality and that she had understood her acts at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
In a letter of 22 May 1995 the Vice-President of the Łódź Regional Court advised the applicant that her observation in a medical establishment had been ordered by a court in response to the request by psychiatrists, who had concluded that they had been unable to draw up an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental health after a single examination.
On 30 May 1995 the applicant was transferred to the Łódź Prison No. 1. During the transfer she was handcuffed. On 3 June 1995 she was released from prison.
On an unspecified date the Łódź District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
On 29 December 1995 the Łódź District Prosecutor issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant on charges of embezzlement of rent collected from certain tenants living in a building administered by her. The applicant failed to provide information about the outcome of these criminal proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that her arrests on 25 October 1994 and 23 March 1995, and the subsequent detention, were in breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention about the outcome of numerous proceedings to which she was a party and which resulted from the dispute over the administration of property.
The applicant also submits that Article 8 of the Convention was violated on her arrest and detention. She points out that, when she was detained, her husband and children were only allowed to see her once a month. Moreover, the applicant avers that Article 8 was breached in several court proceedings arising from the dispute over the administration of property. The applicant alleges a breach of her right to respect for her correspondence, claiming that an envelope mailed to her house by the European Commission of Human Rights arrived damaged, and that on one occasion a prison guard refused to pass her a note written by her family.
Finally, the applicant claims that the facts of her case disclose a violation of the following Articles of the Convention: 4 § 2, 10, 13, 14 and 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains that her arrests on 25 October 1994 and 23 March 1995, and the subsequent detention, were in breach of Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to liberty, with certain exceptions, and Article 8 guarantees, inter alia, the right to respect for private and family life.
The Court considers that at the present stage it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
2.The applicant complains that the facts of her case disclose a further violation of Article 8 arising from the various court proceedings involving the dispute over the administration of property. She also avers that her right to respect for her correspondence was breached concerning an envelope from the European Commission of Human Rights and a note from her family when she was in prison. Article 8 of the Convention also ensures the right to respect for correspondence. Finally, the applicant invokes the following Articles of the Convention: Article 4 (freedom from slavery), Article 5 § 3 (the right to be brought promptly before a judge), Article 5 § 4 (the right to a speedy determination of the lawfulness of detention), Article 6 § 1 (the right to a fair hearing), Article 6 § 2 (the presumption of innocence), Article 6 § 3 (certain criminal defence rights), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 13 (the right to effective remedies for Convention breaches), Article 14 (freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights), Article 18 (the limitations on the use of Convention rights) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the right to property).
However, the Court finds that the applicant’s assertions about the violations of the above provisions of the Convention and Protocol No. 1 are wholly unsubstantiated. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints that her arrest and detention were in breach of Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
S. DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy