FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38804/97
by Stanisław RAWA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2001 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 lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 April 1997 and registered on 28 November 1997,
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, Stanisław Rawa, is a Polish national, who was born in 1930 and lives in Warsaw.
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant, a professional army officer, had to take an early retirement in 1965. On unspecified dates before 1 May 1993 he was twice deprived of liberty and placed in a psychiatric hospital. He also alleges that at an unspecified date prior to 1 May 1993 his son died as a result of the applicant's imprisonment.
On 13 June 1994 the applicant filed a civil action against the Ministry of National Defence, claiming that he was deprived of adequate medical treatment, to which he was entitled as a retired army officer. He maintained that numerous errors committed by military dentists and their incompetence had led to irreversible bodily injuries and disturbance of his health. Subsequently, he claimed damages.
On 15 February 1996 the applicant appeared before the court an hour after the hearing began. He complained to the President of the Warsaw District Court that he had not been duly informed about the fixed time of the hearing. He further complained that, after having waited several years for the trial, he had been denied the opportunity of questioning witnesses and had not been allowed to examine the minutes of the hearing. The President of the District Court rejected the applicant's complaint explaining that the applicant himself bore the blame for having been late at the hearing.
On the same day the court decided to appoint professor J.P. as an expert. In May 1996 the expert opinion reached the court.
Between 1996 and 1998, ten hearings were scheduled by the court: on 23 September 1996, 12 November 1996, 17 December 1996, 14 January 1997, 7 March 1997, 17 June 1997, 9 September 1997, 5 February 1998 and on two unspecified dates. Each time the court expert professor J.P. failed to attend.
On 5 February 1998 the case was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court.
In a letter of 31 March 1998, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the lack of progress in the proceedings, letter of 19 February 1998 addressed to the Ministry of Justice, the President of the Warsaw Regional Court admitted that the proceedings were too slow, but in his opinion the court was justified since the delay was mainly caused by the persistent failure of the expert J.P. to attend hearings.
During the hearing held on 14 July 1998, the court took the evidence from the expert J.P. On 17 July 1998 at a closed-door session the court decided that additional expert opinions should be prepared in the next 30 days. The court made a few attempts to appoint experts, but they refused to prepare their opinions for various reasons.
On 30 June1999 the expert opinion prepared by professor A.K.S. was finally submitted. Following that, the applicant formulated a list of questions addressed to the expert.
On 17 May 2000 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court, in reply to the applicant's letter of 30 March 2000 addressed to the Ministry of Justice, informed him once again that difficulties in hearing the evidence (as well as other reasons outside the court's control) contributed to the excessive length of proceedings. No hearings had been held since 30 June 1999 due to the fact that it was of primary importance for the court to establish which institution was responsible for the obligations of the Central Clinical Hospital at the Warsaw Medical Academy after health sector reforms.
The applicant countered these arguments in two letters of complaint written to the Ministry of Justice of 22 and 25 May 2000. The applicant complained inter alia that the expert did not manage to adopt a stand on the number of questions he had posed nine months earlier.
On 13 June 2000 the Ministry informed the applicant that the reasons provided by the President of the Warsaw Regional Court in the letter of 17 May 2000 were convincing and that the case would thereon be taken under the supervision in order to expedite the proceedings.
On 14 September 2000 the applicant sent a letter of complaint to the Ministry of Justice, stating that he was not satisfied with the vague explanations he had obtained.
On 13 November 2000 he was informed by the Complaints Department in the Ministry that the Warsaw Regional Court had been notified of the expert's death and that a new expert had been appointed. The proceedings would be resumed as soon as the appropriate expert opinion had been submitted.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his case has not been decided within a reasonable time. The length of proceedings has resulted in irreparable detriment to his health.
2. He also alleges that on an unspecified date before 1 May 1993 he was twice wrongly deprived of liberty and tortured. An additional consequence of these violations was the death of his son, which also occurred before that date. The applicant relies in this respect on Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his case has not been decided within a reasonable time. The length of proceedings has resulted in irreparable detriment to his health.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2.The applicant also alleges that on an unspecified date before 1 May 1993 he was twice wrongly deprived of liberty and tortured. An additional consequence of these violations was the death of his son, which also occurred before that date. The applicant relies in this respect on Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the facts complained of relate to a period prior to 1 May 1993, which is the date on which the declaration whereby Poland accepted the right of individual petition took effect. 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, 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 length of civil proceedings;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy