Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31
June 2001
Stańczuk v. Poland (dec.) - 45004/98
Decision 14.6.2001 [Section IV]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Refusal to reinstate former civil servant recruited under Communist regime: Article 6 inapplicable
From 1989 to 1989, the applicant served as a secret agent of the security services of the Ministry of the Interior. In 1990, all agents of these services were dismissed in accordance with the Security Bureau Act 1990. A special procedure of selection and recruitment was set for former agents of the services. The decision on reinstatement of former agents was to be taken by a special board, with a possible appeal to another board which would give a final decision on reinstatement. The examination board decided that the applicant did not meet the required standards to be reinstated. Consequently, he appealed to the second board, which upheld the decision refusing him reinstatement. The applicant lodged three appeals with the Supreme Administrative Court, which rejected them on the ground that no appeal laid against the decisions of the boards. He lodged a further complaint to the Regional Court, which informed him that it could not be examined as, inter alia, the relevant law did not provide for the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of decisions of the examination boards and he had failed to indicate who should be the other party to the proceedings he was seeking to institute.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: According to domestic law, former agents of the secret services of the police recruited under the Communist regime were to be dismissed and had to go through a screening procedure before being reinstated in the service. No appeal lay against decisions on reinstatement, which thus were final. The applicant has not demonstrated that, in domestic law, he could have, even on arguable grounds, a claim to have the unfavourable decision on reinstatement reversed or amended. Regard must be had to the fact that the proceedings concerned the dismissal of a public officer working for secret services of the police. The applicant’s post, by its very nature, involved the exercise of State powers conferred on the police by public law. Thus, it could not be found established that the proceedings which the applicant sought to institute before the Regional Court fell within the ambit of the present article: incompatible ratione materiae.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy