CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 avril 1996

.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. 27092/95                       by Wlodzimierz ZAWOLUK                       against Poland         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 12 April 1996, 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 17 January 1995 by Wlodzimierz ZAWOLUK against Poland and registered on 24 April 1995 under file No. 27092/95;         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 applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1959, is currently serving a prison sentence in Jastrz*bie Zdrój prison.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:         In 1992 the applicant was detained in Starogard psychiatric hospital.   On 23 June 1992 a police team was requested to come to the hospital to restrain the applicant, who refused to take injections. During the police action the applicant sustained an injury.   As a result of this incident, he subsequently underwent hospital treatment and eventually lost one eye.         Apparently in September or October 1992 the applicant filed an action against the State Treasury with the Gdansk Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki), claiming compensation for loss of his eyesight.   On an uncertain later date the Starogard Public Prosecutor instituted criminal investigations concerning the applicant's injury.         On 16 October 1992 the Starogard police, acting on behalf of the State Treasury, requested that the civil proceedings be suspended as the outcome of the criminal investigations was of decisive importance for the further conduct of the civil case.         On 18 November 1992 the Prosecutor ordered that an expert opinion be prepared as to what injuries the applicant had sustained during the police intervention on 23 June 1992 and whether they could have originated from the acts of the police.         On 23 November 1992 the Gdansk Regional Court suspended the civil proceedings, considering that the outcome of the criminal investigations was of decisive importance for the State Treasury's liability for the applicant's injury.         On 26 March 1993 a further expert opinion was ordered as to whether the injury of the applicant's eye could have been caused by a cardboard cap of a "smoke-glare" bullet, which the police had fired twice during the June 1992 intervention.         On 29 April 1993 the criminal investigations were suspended as the second expert opinion of the forensic medicine specialist was still outstanding.         On 21 October 1993, in reply to the applicant's complaint, the Ombudsman informed him that he had requested the Starogard District Prosecutor to inform him about the progress in the investigations.         On 7 December 1993 the District Prosecutor informed the applicant that the investigations were still suspended as the expert opinion had not been submitted.         On 7 March 1994 the District Prosecutor informed the applicant that the proceedings were still suspended as the second expert opinion had not been submitted.         On 28 June 1994 the Starogard Gdanski District Court (S*d Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of assaulting a doctor and one of the policemen during the events on 23 June 1992 and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment.         On 6 January 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the Gdansk Regional Court that there was no progress in the civil proceedings.   In reply, the President informed him on 27 January 1995 that the civil proceedings would be resumed after the criminal investigations had come to an end.         On 24 January 1995 the Forensic Medicine Department of the Gdansk Medical Academy submitted the expert opinion.         On 1 February 1995 the Starogard Gdanski Public Prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings, finding that on 23 June 1992 the applicant had refused to be transferred to another ward.   He had menaced medical staff with a knife and a metal pole and hit a doctor several times, breaking his hand, causing a cut wound of his elbow and an injury of the abdomen.   The hospital director had called the police. A team of four policemen had tried to negotiate with the applicant, who had refused to cooperate and stated that he was "ready for anything". As the director had refused to have tear gas used in the hospital, an anti-terrorist police squad had been called, which first had undertaken negotiations with the applicant and, after the negotiations failed, had used a net to overpower the applicant and twice fired a "smoke-glare" bullet in his direction.   As the police had approached the applicant afterwards to handcuff him, blood had been found on his hands.   The Prosecutor concluded that the use of the force in the case had been legitimate and justified by the applicant's aggressive behaviour; that the police had not overstepped the limits set out in the legal provisions concerning the use of force and, consequently, that no offence had been committed.         On 4 May 1995 the Gdansk Regional Public Prosecutor dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision, considering that it was based on extensive evidence which had been assessed in a meticulous and logical way.         On a date not specified in 1995 the civil proceedings were resumed.         On 22 June 1995 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of the civil proceedings.   On 1 July 1995 the Ministry informed him that his complaint had been transferred for reply to the President of the Gdansk Regional Court.          A hearing was to be held on 2 October 1995.   The Gdansk Regional Court informed the applicant and asked him to submit his final requests for evidence.   However, eventually that hearing was adjourned as the witness to be heard, a paramedic who had seen the police intervention in 1992, failed to appear, and a date of the next hearing was set for 20 November 1995.         On 3 October 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the Gdansk Regional Court that he had not received in time the information about the hearing of 2 October.         On 9 October 1995 the Katowice Regional Court refused to suspend further execution of the applicant's penalty, considering that the applicant's wish to take part personally in the civil proceedings did not constitute a relevant ground for release.         On 20 October 1995 the Gdansk Regional Court informed the applicant that his presence at the hearing on 2 October 1995 had not been required by law and not necessary because the hearing of himself had not been foreseen on this date.   The questioning of the parties was to be taken as concluding evidence and, given that the applicant was in prison, the court might consider having this evidence taken by another court.         On 6 November 1995, in reply to the court's letter of 20 October 1995, the applicant again complained about the length of the proceedings.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill-treatment which he had suffered during the police action in 1992.   He complains that he did not receive appropriate assistance from any of the authorities and that his compensation case is still pending before the first instance court.         The applicant further complains that his requests to have the execution of his penalty suspended or to be temporarily released, so that he could participate in the civil proceedings, were dismissed.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention about the ill-treatment which he had suffered during the police action in 1992.   He complains that he did not receive appropriate assistance from any of the authorities.   The Commission notes that the alleged ill-treatment occurred on 26 June 1992.         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 of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 30 April 1993".   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.         Therefore, the Commission observes that the facts alleged, as they occurred before 30 April 1993, are outside its competence ratione temporis and the applicant's complaints in this respect must therefore be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of its Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   2.     The applicant further complains that his requests to have the execution of his penalty suspended or to be temporarily released, so that he could participate in the civil proceedings, were dismissed. However, the Convention does not grant a right to have the execution of a prison sentence suspended or to be granted temporary release. This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.     The applicant finally complains about the length of the civil proceedings for compensation which were instituted in 1992 and which are still pending before the first instance court.   The Commission, which has examined this complaint under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, decide this complaint without the observations of both parties.         The Commission therefore considers that this part of the application must be adjourned.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint       concerning the length of the civil proceedings;         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the Second Chamber         President of the Second Chamber          (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                         (H. DANELIUS)