FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42615/98
by Jan POTAŚ
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 18 February 1998 and registered on 6 August 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 1956 and living in Katowice, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
In October 1992 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an appeal against a decision of the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) denying him a right to disability pension for his occupational accident at a coal mine.
On 21 January 1993 the court ordered medical examination of the applicant. He submits that he did not appear before the medical experts, because he had received the relevant notification too late.
On 15 February 1993 the court again ordered the examination.
On 13 July 1993 the Katowice Regional Court delivered the judgment, in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated. Subsequently, he lodged an appeal against that judgment.
On 24 March 1994 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing at which it delivered the judgment. The court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 5 December 1994 the Katowice Regional Court held a hearing at which it ordered additional medical examination of the applicant.
On 14 February 1996 the court delivered its judgment. It granted the applicant the right to a disability pension. The Social Security Board appealed to the Katowice Court of Appeal against that judgment.
On 10 September 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal ordered an additional expert opinion.
On 25 September 1997 the appellate court delivered its judgment in which it allowed the appeal of the Social Security Board.
Subsequently, the applicant requested the Katowice Court of Appeal to grant him a legal aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal against the judgment of 25 September 1997. On 16 December 1997 the court refused the applicant’s request, considering that he had not proved sufficiently that he could not bear the costs of legal assistance. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Katowice Court of Appeal.
On 12 January 1998 the appellate court rejected the applicant’s appeal as not provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Subsequently, on two occasions the applicant requested the Katowice Court of Appeal to reopen the proceedings, but to no avail.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant submits that the coal mine violated Article 3 of the Convention by employing him regardless of the state of his health and “kicking him out like a piece of rubbish” after his accident. He alleges that he had to perform forced labour, in breach of Article 4, because despite his illness he was not transferred to a lighter kind of work. The applicant further submits that his right to protection of health and life has been violated.
2.He complains under Article 6 about several errors of law and fact allegedly committed by the courts.
3.The applicant complains under Article 6 about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 4 about degrading treatment by the coal mine, for which he allegedly had to perform forced labour and about a violation of his right to protection of health and life.
The Court notes that the applicant worked in the coal mine until 1992. However, the declaration whereby Poland accepted the right of individual petition took effect on 1 May 1993. It follows that the application is in this part incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2.The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about errors of law and fact committed by the domestic courts.
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.
It follows that 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 about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy