AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 28616/95
by Szczepan STYRANOWSKI
against Poland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 15 April 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 24 July 1995 by
Szczepan STYRANOWSKI against Poland and registered on 21 September 1995
under file No. 28616/95;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
28 October 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 29 November 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1923, is a retired judge
residing in Olsztyn.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows:
In May 1991 the applicant retired. The Social Insurance
authorities calculated his retirement pension on the basis of his
contributions at the level of about 45 per cent of his salary, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Retirement Pensions Act
of 1972. The applicant's pension was calculated on the basis of his
actual salary upon retirement, which was equivalent to 314 per cent of
an average salary.
On 1 December 1991 the Social Insurance authorities in Olsztyn
issued a new decision, in accordance with the amendment of the
Retirement Pensions Act of 17 October 1991, reducing the applicant's
retirement pension by 1.075,600 zlotys. This pension was calculated
on the assumption, introduced by that amendment, that the applicant's
income upon retirement had not exceeded a maximum level of 250 per cent
of an average salary, regardless of his actual salary at that moment.
On 17 December 1991 the applicant appealed against this decision
to the Olsztyn Regional Court - Labour and Social Insurance Division
(S*d Wojewódzki - S*d Pracy i Ubezpieczen Spolecznych). He submitted
that the 250 per cent ceiling introduced by the October 1991 amendment
deprived him of a part of his retirement pension.
On 17 December 1991 the applicant also filed a compensation claim
against the Social Insurance with the Olsztyn District Court (S*d
Rejonowy). He complained that his retirement pension had been
recalculated and reduced in accordance with generally applicable rules,
i.e. disregarding the fact that his actual salary upon retirement had
been equivalent to 314 per cent of an average salary. He submitted
that the Social Insurance, in accepting the law which had imposed a
ceiling of 250 per cent of an average salary as the highest basis on
which a retirement pension could be calculated, had failed to respect
its obligations towards the applicant. These obligations originated
from the applicant's payment of contributions to the social security
retirement pension scheme for forty-four years. No legal provisions
throughout this period provided for any ceiling such as the one
introduced by the October 1991 Act. Thus the action of the Social
Insurance had given rise to a liability towards the applicant based on
tort.
On 25 May 1992 the Warsaw Court of Appeal - Labour and Social
Insurance Division (S*d Apelacyjny - S*d Pracy i Ubezpieczen
Spolecznych) complied with the request submitted by all the Olsztyn
Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki) judges to have the applicant's appeal
against the Social Insurance decision of 1 December 1991 examined by
another court in view of the fact that the applicant had been their
superior for many years. The case was accordingly transferred to the
Warsaw Regional Court - Labour and Social Insurance Division. This
Court held a hearing on 8 September 1992 and dismissed the applicant's
appeal against the decision of 1 December 1991, considering that the
impugned decision was in conformity with the relevant provisions of the
Retirement Pensions Act as amended by the October 1991 Act.
Subsequently on 9 February 1993 the Social Insurance authorities
issued a new decision concerning the applicant's retirement pension on
the basis of certain new documents indicating that the applicant's
salary upon his retirement had in fact been higher than the amount
which had served as basis of the December 1991 decision. The applicant
appealed against this decision, complaining again that the basis on
which to recalculate his pension should not have been limited to 250
per cent of the average salary as provided for by the relevant legal
provisions. On 14 May 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court - Labour and
Social Insurance Division allowed the applicant's appeal as regards the
period until 1 January 1992 and dismissed it insofar as it related to
the period after that date, i.e. after the entry into force of the
October 1991 Act. The Court considered that the 250 coefficient had
been provided for in the relevant provisions of the October 1991 Act
applicable after this date and that in applying these provisions to the
applicant's case the Social Insurance had been acting in accordance
with the law.
In the proceedings concerning the compensation claim, on
20 May 1992 the Warsaw Court of Appeal complied with the request
submitted by all the Olsztyn Regional Court judges to have the
compensation case examined by another court as regards any decisions
to be taken by the appellate court. The Court decided that in view of
the fact that the applicant had been a Deputy President of the Olsztyn
Regional Court, the appeal proceedings in the case should be
transferred to the Ostrol*ka Regional Court. On 19 June 1992 the case-
file reached the Ostrol*ka Regional Court.
On 26 June 1992 the Warsaw Court of Appeal complied with the
request submitted by all the Olsztyn District Court judges to have the
compensation case examined by another court and decided that in view
of the fact that the applicant had been a Deputy President of the
Olsztyn Regional Court, the case should be transferred to the Szczytno
District Court.
On 29 September 1992 the Ostrol*ka Regional Court, at the request
of the judges of the Szczytno District Court, decided that the case
should be examined in the first instance by the Przasnysz District
Court.
The first hearing, fixed for 9 November 1992, was adjourned as
the Court did not receive a confirmation that the defendant Social
Insurance had received the summons.
On 17 November 1992 the applicant informed the Przasnysz District
Court that he maintained his claim and requested that a certain witness
be heard. The Przasnysz Court requested the Olsztyn District Court to
hear this witness.
The hearing fixed for 24 November 1992 was adjourned as the
witness requested by the applicant failed to appear.
The date of a hearing was fixed for 30 December 1992. The
applicant requested that this hearing be adjourned. The Olsztyn
District Court fixed a new hearing for 14 January 1993 and heard the
witness requested by the applicant on that date.
On 19 January 1993 the applicant requested that the Court rectify
the minutes of the hearing held on 14 January 1993. The Court complied
with this request on 15 April 1993.
On 18 May 1993 the hearing was adjourned as the defendant had not
submitted the confirmation that it had received the summons.
On 17 September 1993 the applicant complained to the Przasnysz
District Court about the length of the compensation proceedings and
requested that the date of the next hearing be fixed. He also
requested that the former Prime Minister who had been in office until
June 1993 be heard as a witness to support the applicant's claim that
in the past the social security contributions had been used by the
State for other purposes than paying social insurance benefits.
On 20 September 1993 the applicant requested that a date of the
next hearing be fixed with no delay. On the same date the presiding
judge ordered that the applicant be informed that due to serious
staffing difficulties the date of the hearing would be fixed later.
The next hearing was fixed for 25 January 1994. On 21 January
1994 the applicant informed the Przasnysz Court that he would be unable
to attend the hearing at which his attendance was not obligatory. He
maintained his claim and referred to the Constitutional Tribunal's
judgment of 11 February 1992 in which the Tribunal had stated that the
October 1991 amendment to the Retirement Pensions Act was incompatible
with the Constitution. On 25 January 1994 the hearing was adjourned
as the parties did not appear.
The next hearing was fixed for 23 September 1994. On
16 September 1994 the applicant informed the Przasnysz Court that he
would be unable to attend the hearing at which his attendance was not
obligatory. He maintained his claim and requested again that the
former Prime Minister be heard, referring to his letter of
17 September 1993.
On 23 September 1994 the hearing was further adjourned as the
Court decided to request the Social Insurance to submit the applicant's
case-file. This case-file reached the Court on 27 October 1994.
On 7 December 1994 the applicant complained to the Minister of
Justice about the length of the proceedings and in particular about the
hearings having been adjourned on numerous occasions without
justification.
In reply, in a letter of 10 January 1995 the President of the
Ostrol*ka Regional Court informed the applicant that his case should
be considered as being "privileged" since the hearings in his case had
been fixed for 9 November 1992, 24 November 1992, 25 January 1993,
18 May 1993 and 23 September 1993. In view of the fact that the
Przasnysz Court was understaffed, these intervals between the hearings
were sufficient to secure appropriate progress in the proceedings. The
letter went on to state that the applicant had failed to appear at all
these hearings and that the next hearing had been set for
7 February 1995 and the case was ready for a prompt ruling.
In a letter of 11 January 1995 the applicant stressed that he had
been present at the hearing of 14 January 1993 and had extensively
pleaded his case. It was true that he had not been present at other
hearings, but he had requested that the case be considered in his
absence. Moreover, the court had never required his attendance at any
of the hearings. After the hearings the applicant had submitted
several letters to the court in which he explained his position in the
light of the progress in the case. It had not transpired from the
information which he had obtained on the phone after every hearing that
any of the hearings had been adjourned because of his absence or his
failure to submit documents or evidence required by the court.
In a letter to the Court of 2 February 1995 the applicant
informed the Przasnysz District Court that he would be unable to attend
the hearing on 7 February 1995 as his attendance was not obligatory.
He maintained his claim and submitted further legal reasoning to
support his claim.
On 7 February 1995 the Przasnysz District Court rejected the
applicant's claim, considering that the matter was res iudicata since
the issue of the ceiling to which the applicant's retirement pension
was subjected had been ruled on in two sets of proceedings, terminated
by the judgments of 8 September 1992 and 14 May 1993, respectively.
On 8 February 1995 the applicant requested that the written grounds be
prepared. They were served on the applicant on 3 April 1995.
On 6 April 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal against the
decision of 7 February 1995.
On 13 July 1995 the Ostrol*ka Regional Court quashed the decision
of 7 February 1995 and ordered that the case be reconsidered. The
Court observed that in the first proceedings the only issue which had
been decided by the court was whether the calculation of the
applicant's retirement benefits complied with the relevant legal
provisions. In the compensation proceedings the applicant claimed
compensation for the alteration of the conditions of the contract with
the Social Insurance and his claim was based on tort. As these two
claims were not identical, the second claim could not be considered as
being affected by res iudicata.
The next hearing was held on 3 October 1995. The court adjourned
the pronouncement of the judgment. The judgment was pronounced on 17
October 1995. On 29 October 1995 the applicant requested that the
written grounds be prepared. They were served on him on 5 December
1995. On 13 December 1995 the applicant filed an appeal. On 16
January 1996 the Ostrol*ka Regional Court dismissed the applicant's
appeal.
On 11 March and 23 April 1996 the applicant requested that the
reasoned judgment be served on him.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about
the length of the compensation proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 24 July 1995 and registered on
21 September 1995.
On 27 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
applicant's complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings
to the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its
Rules of Procedure and to declare the remainder of the application
inadmissible.
The Government's written observations were submitted on 28
October 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that
purpose. The applicant replied on 29 November 1996.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention about the length of the compensation proceedings.
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time..."
a) The Government submit that the application, insofar as it relates
to events prior to the date of recognition of the right of individual
petition by Poland, is outside the competence ratione temporis of the
Commission.
The Commission recalls that Poland has recognised the competence
of the Commission to receive individual applications "from any person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be
a victim of a violation of the rights recognised in the Convention
through any act, decision or event occurring after 30 April 1993". It
follows that the Commission is not competent to examine complaints
relating to violations of the Convention by acts, decisions or events
that have occurred prior to this date.
The Commission further recalls that in cases where it can, by
reason of its competence ratione temporis, only examine part of the
proceedings, it can take into account, in order to assess the length,
the stage reached in the proceedings at the beginning of the period
under consideration (see No. 7984/77, Dec. 11.7.79, D.R. 16, p. 92).
It follows that the Commission is competent ratione temporis to examine
the applicant's complaint insofar as it relates to the proceedings
after 30 April 1993, taking into consideration the stage of the
proceedings reached at this date.
b) As regards the substance of the complaint, the Government first
contend that the length of the proceedings, which after 30 April 1993
lasted two years and eight months, is justified by the particular
circumstances of the case. The case should be regarded as very complex
as to its legal contents. The complex character of the legal issues
involved is shown by the fact that the compatibility of the October
1991 Act with the Constitution was subject to the scrutiny of the
Constitutional Court which decided on 11 February 1992 that certain
provisions of the Act were incompatible with the Constitution. In his
compensation claim the applicant based the liability of the defendant
on tort. Such cases are usually difficult for the courts to decide as
it must be established that the conditions of such liability provided
for by law are complied with. The compensation case was linked to the
applicant's appeal against the decision of the Social Insurance of 1
December 1991 and the Przasnysz Court had to request the Warsaw Court
to transmit the case-file.
The Government concede that no delays in the proceedings can be
attributed to the applicant. However, certain delays are attributable
to the conduct of the parties. On 9 November 1992 and 18 May 1993 the
hearings were adjourned as there was no confirmation in the case-file
that the summonses had been served on the defendant. The court cannot
be held responsible therefor. On 24 November 1992 the hearing was
adjourned as the witness failed to appear. On 25 January 1994 and
23 September 1994 the hearings were adjourned as both parties failed
to appear. In the course of the proceedings the applicant filed
appeals against certain decisions.
As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Government submit
that there were no shortcomings for which the courts could be held
responsible. The dates of hearings were set at shortest intervals
possible. On 5 March 1993 there was a fire in the Przasnysz Court. The
applicant's file was not destroyed, but serious difficulties in the
functioning of the Court ensued. The applicant's former professional
status as a judge in the Olsztyn Regional Court and the fact that he
had been a direct superior of civil judges in the jurisdiction of that
Court caused many judges to step down which entailed certain delays in
the proceedings.
The Government conclude that the length of the proceedings
complied with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention and that the application should be declared manifestly ill-
founded.
The applicant submits that the case was not complex as shown by
the written grounds of the judgment and the facts were not in dispute
between the parties.
With regard to the conduct of the authorities the applicant
further submits that his professional status as a retired judge of the
Olsztyn Regional Court did not warrant that all the judges of the
District Court step down. The Ostrol*ka Regional Court transferred the
case back to the Szczytno District Court which was within the
jurisdiction of the Olsztyn Regional Court. This contributed to
further prolongation of the proceedings. The defendant remained
passive throughout the proceedings as shown by the fact that his
representative was only present at one hearing, and disregarded the
summonses. Two hearings were adjourned as there was no confirmation
in the case-file that the defendant had received summonses. The Court
failed to take any steps to establish whether the defendant had really
not received them. The applicant emphasises in this regard that he
always received summonses on time. The passivity of the Social
Insurance cannot be held against the applicant.
The applicant contends that the case was ready for decision
already in early 1994 as he argued in his letter to the Court of
24 April 1994. The Court should have requested the submission of the
case-file of another civil case at an earlier stage of the proceedings
concerned. The written grounds of the decision of 7 February 1995 were
prepared only on 3 April 1995. The fire in the Court did not destroy
the case-file and therefore should not have affected the conduct of the
proceedings. The Government do not mention the applicant's letters to
the President of the Court and the Minister of Justice in which he
complained about the delays in the proceedings.
The Commission considers that the application raises serious
issues of fact and law under the Convention the determination of which
should depend on an examination of the merits. It follows that this
part of the application cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without
prejudging the merits.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy