FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42042/98
by Wiesław PERYT
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 November 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 October 1997 and registered on 4 July 1998,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1940 and living in Marysin, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
A.Proceedings concerning the division of the property
In 1992 the applicant’s former wife instituted civil proceedings against him concerning the division of their property.
On 31 December 1992 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that 1,380,000 old zlotys (PLZ) be paid for an expert opinion. The court decided that PLZ 800,000 would be taken from the advance already paid by the applicant’s former wife, whereas the applicant was called to pay the remaining PLZ 580,000.
On 4 January and 4 February 1993 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) held hearings.
On 12 February 1993 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from the court costs. It considered that in view of the fact that he ran a commercial farm specialised in the production of houseplants, which had brought him the profit of PLZ 50,000,000 in the autumn of 1992, the costs would not affect his livelihood.
On 15 May 1993 the applicant requested that the court include in the case file certain documents allegedly stolen by the plaintiff. He submits that the request was not examined.
At the hearing of 15 March 1994 the applicant petitioned the court to punish a witness who in his opinion had given false testimony. He submits that the petition was not examined.
On 10 December 1994 the applicant lodged an objection against the allegedly unlawful appointment of a court expert in the case. He submits that the objection was not examined.
On 21 December 1994 the court held a hearing. On 23 December 1994 the applicant requested the court to admonish the plaintiff for insulting him.
On 3 January 1995 the court delivered a partial decision. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. Subsequently, he was ordered to pay a fee therefor. He requested the exemption, but his request was on 24 March 1995 refused as unsubstantiated.
On 6 July 1995 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 3 January 1995, as he had failed to pay the court fee. His appeal against the decision of 6 July 1995 was on 5 January 1996 dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
On 18 July 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal against the court’s order to pay a fee for his appeal against the decision of 24 March 1995. He submits that the appeal was not examined.
On 10 May 1996 the court held a hearing.
On 5 July 1996 a hearing was adjourned because the counsel for one of the parties’ was ill. On the same day the applicant lodged a motion in which he challenged the presiding judge. On 15 July 1996 the applicant’s motion was dismissed.
On 8 August 1996 the court adjourned a hearing.
On 21 May 1997 the court held a hearing.
On 18 November 1997 the court rejected the applicant’s request to reopen the proceedings terminated by the partial decision of 3 January 1995. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. It was on 27 July 1998 dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court.
On 26 January, 10 March, 29 March, 10 May, 8 June and 14 June 1999 the court held hearings. On 14 June 1999 the applicant requested that the hearing be recorded on an audiocassette.
At the hearing held on 23 August 1999 the court ordered expert opinions. The applicant lodged a complaint in this respect, but it was rejected on 15 November 1999.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
B.Other proceedings
1.On 23 December 1996 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court a complaint with respect to a bailiff carrying out the enforcement of the decision delivered on 3 January 1995 by that court.
On 17 March 1997 the court allowed the applicant’s complaint and annulled a decision of the bailiff.
Subsequently, the applicant sought exemption from the court costs in those proceedings. However, on 14 May 1997 the court dismissed his request, considering that the fee of PLN 15 was not excessive, especially for the applicant, who was the owner of a commercial farm. His appeal against that decision was rejected as lodged out of the prescribed time-limit.
2.The applicant lodged another complaint against the bailiff, but it was on 21 July 1997 rejected, as the applicant had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
3.In 1998 the applicant filed with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court an action, in which he sought compensation of PLN 1,200,000 from the President of the Warsaw Regional Court and the bailiff for the Warsaw District Court.
The case was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court, because the District Court had no jurisdiction to decide a case concerning such a high claim.
On 23 March 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from the court costs, considering that the action was manifestly ill-founded, as it in fact amounted to contesting the court’s decisions delivered in the course of the proceedings concerning the division of the property and the bailiff’s activities relating thereto. In addition, the court noted that the applicant had not shown the relation between the activities of the defendants and the exorbitant amount of compensation sought.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, but it was on 20 May 1999 dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).
On 26 November 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s action for his non-compliance with the court’s order to pay the fee.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings concerning the division of property.
2.He complains under Article 3 that the courts have treated him in a degrading way.
3.The applicant alleges a violation of Article 13 by the second-instance courts, which on numerous occasions dismissed his appeals or complaints, making thereby those remedies ineffective.
4.He complains under Article 14 that on several occasions he had to pay costs imposed by the court only because of the fact that he allegedly owned a lot of property.
5.The applicant complains that in the proceedings concerning the division of the property the courts “treat his property as their own” and “as something to be taken away”, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
6. In his numerous “supplements to the statement of the facts” the applicant seems to contest almost all decisions issued by the courts, claiming that the courts have committed errors of law and fact.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains about the unreasonable length of the proceedings concerning the division of the property.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
2.The applicant raises a complaint under Article 3 with respect to the court proceedings in which he has taken part.
However, having examined the applicant’s submissions, the Court finds no indication of treatment attaining the “minimum level of severity” at which Article 3 of the Convention becomes relevant (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 162).
Therefore, this complaint is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
3.The applicant complains that the second-instance courts made the remedies available to him ineffective by dismissing them all, in breach of Article 13.
The Court recalls that the remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of the complaint (see application no. 11468/85, K. v. the United Kingdom, decision of 15 October 1986, DR 50, p. 199). Therefore, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, in accordance with 35 § 4.
4.The applicant complains under Article 14 that on several occasions he had to pay costs imposed by the court only because of the fact that he allegedly owned a lot of property.
The prohibition of discrimination, guaranteed by Article 14 relates to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The Court notes that a complaint concerning high court costs may raise an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular with respect to the right of access to a court. Therefore, the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 shall be examined in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.
However, the Court recalls that Article 14 safeguards from discrimination individuals placed in analogous situations (see the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 15, § 32). It observes that the applicant has not shown that there are any individuals in the situation similar to his, who have been treated in a different manner, in particular he has not provided any information about the payment of court costs by the other parties to the proceedings. For these reasons the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint is entirely unsubstantiated and rejects it in accordance with Article 35 § 4 as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning Article 35 § 3.
5.The applicant seems to complain that the courts violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court notes that the domestic proceedings in the present case concern a civil law dispute between private individuals and therefore they may not themselves engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, application no. 13021/87, Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, decision of 8 September 1988, DR 57, p. 268). It follows that this part the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
6.The applicant appears to complain about the errors of law and fact allegedly committed by the domestic courts in the course of the various proceedings in which he has been involved.
The Court observes that it is not called upon to deal with errors of fact and law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, 21.1.99, § 28, unreported). There is no indication that in the course of the proceedings the applicant could not put forward his submissions or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.
In addition, the proceedings concerning the division of the property are still pending before the domestic courts, where the applicant can put, at least in substance, the complaints which he is now putting before the Court. With respect to these proceedings the complaint is therefore premature.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings concerning the division of property;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy