CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 septembre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 25030/94                     by Ludwik SOWINSKI                     against Poland        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 6 September 1995, the following members being present:             Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                P. LORENZEN             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 14 April 1994 by Ludwik Sowinski against Poland and registered on 30 August 1994 under file No. 25030/94;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:        The applicant is a Polish citizen residing in Radomsko.   He is represented before the Commission by his present guardian, Mr. Stefan Sowinski, a retired judge residing in Radomsko.        In the early 1970s the applicant was legally incapacitated.        In 1975 the Regional Office in Lódz decided to expropriate a house belonging to the applicant and located in Radomsko.   Compensation of 592,626 zlotys was paid into a court account.        In 1977 the applicant's brother Z., who was then his guardian, requested authorisation from the Radomsko District Court (S*d Rejonowy) to pay 311,400 zlotys into a special housing savings account and the remaining 188,600 zlotys into the applicant's ordinary savings account.        In 1979 the Radomsko District Court decided that the entire sum of the compensation should be deposited in the applicant's ordinary savings account.        In 1983 the applicant's brother S. was appointed his guardian.        On 21 October 1992 the Director of the Radomsko District Office quashed the expropriation decision of 1975 as the property had become redundant for the purpose of expropriation.   The property was to be given back to the applicant.   He ordered that the sum of 298 million zlotys, being the equivalent of the compensation which the applicant had received, be paid to the District Office.        The applicant appealed against this decision.   He submitted that the sum to be reimbursed as compensation was exorbitant.   He stated that in 1975 he had received compensation of 592,626 zlotys.   From 1975 to 1992,   neither he nor his guardians had had any access to the money or say in how to allocate it, as the Radomsko District Court had frozen it in the applicant's savings account.   The applicant submitted a certificate issued by the Radomsko District Court in 1992 to the effect that he was unable to obtain the release of the money as the court had ordered them to be frozen in the savings account.   Thus the sum to be reimbursed should be reduced, regard being had to this particular situation.   The applicant should be obliged to reimburse only the amount of compensation paid in 1975 with the interest accrued on his savings account.        On 1 December 1992 the Governor of the Lódz Region upheld the decision.   He considered that the sum to be reimbursed by the applicant was calculated in accordance with the applicable regulations, taking account of the inflation.   The fact that the applicant had had no access to the money paid as compensation was irrelevant.        The applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny), submitting that in the circumstances of the case the calculation of the compensation was manifestly unfair.   In particular, he pointed out that had he been allowed to put the money in the housing savings account, he would have been able to purchase an apartment.   He should not be penalised for the incorrect decision of the Radomsko District Court which prevented him from investing the money.        On 30 August 1993 the Court adjourned the proceedings in order to refer a legal problem to the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy).   The question was in particular whether it was possible to exempt the applicant from the obligation to reimburse the compensation calculated in accordance with the applicable regulations and to reduce the sum to be paid in reimbursement of the compensation,   regard being had to the fact that the applicant had had no access to the compensation for reasons beyond his control.        On 29 November 1993 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the question submitted by the Supreme Administrative Court.   The Court considered it obvious that it was impossible to exempt the applicant from the applicable regulations concerning calculation of the compensation to be reimbursed.        On 8 April 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.   The court considered that in the light of the position of the Supreme Court it was impossible to reduce the sum to be reimbursed.   The fact that the compensation had been deposited in the applicant's savings account was of no relevance to the case. Furthermore, the applicant had not shown that he had been denied access to the compensation deposited in his account as he had not submitted any decisions by which the court would have refused the guardian an authorisation to use the money for the applicant's benefit. The certificate issued by the court in 1992 was insufficient to prove this.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning allocation of the compensation were unreasonably long as the Radomsko District Court ruled on his guardian's request of 1977 only in 1979.        The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied access to court in that the Radomsko District Court did not rule on his request for permission to deposit part of the compensation in his housing savings account.   Thus the applicant was placed in a continuing situation of lack of access to court.        The applicant finally complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings concerning the calculation of the compensation to be reimbursed.   He submits that the final decision was manifestly unfair as it penalised the applicant for incorrect decisions of the State authorities relating to the use and investment of the compensation.   THE LAW        The applicant submits various complaints under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        Insofar as relevant, this provision reads as follows:        " In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...)      everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a      reasonable time by (a) tribunal (...)"   a.    The applicant first complains about the length of the proceedings concerning his guardian's request for allocation of compensation. However, this complaint relates to proceedings which took place between 1977 and 1979.   The Commission recalls that Poland 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 by Poland of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 30 April 1993".        It follows that this part of the application is outside the competence ratione temporis of the Commission and therefore incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   b.    The applicant further complains that he was placed in a continuing situation of lack of access to court as the Radomsko District Court allegedly failed to rule on his request concerning the placing of the money in the housing savings account.        The Commission is competent ratione temporis to examine this complaint only insofar as it is alleged that there continued to be no access to court after 30 April 1993.   In this respect the Commission notes that the applicant's request of 1977 to pay part of the compensation into a housing savings account was in fact determined by the Radomsko District Court already in 1979 and therefore was no longer pending before a court after the above date.   Nor has it been shown that after that date it would not have been possible for the applicant to raise any related claims before a court in Poland.          This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   c.    The applicant finally complains about the proceedings concerning the calculation of the compensation to be reimbursed.   However, he does not allege any particular shortcomings in the procedure followed, but rather challenges the outcome of the proceedings.        The Commission recalls in this respect that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.   In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.   The Commission refers, on this point, to its established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R.77-B, p.81).        The applicant's complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) is therefore in this respect manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        Insofar as the applicant might be understood as complaining that the result of the above proceedings amounted to an unjustified interference with his property rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, the Commission observes that Poland ratified this Protocol only on 10 October 1994. Thus, an examination under this provision is not possible having regard to the Commission's competence ratione temporis.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber        (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                      (H. DANELIUS)