CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 1997

.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. 23691/94                     by W. K.                     against Poland        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 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 13 September 1993 by W. K. against Poland and registered on 16 March 1994 under file No. 23691/94;        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 applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1956, is an economist residing in Brwinów, Poland.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:   Particular circumstances of the case     1.    Divorce proceedings        On 18 January 1989 the applicant lodged a petition for divorce with the Warsaw District Court (S*d Rejonowy).        On 3 December 1990 the Warsaw District Court gave a judgment dissolving the applicant's marriage.   The right to custody   of the parties' daughter was awarded to his wife whereas the applicant was granted access to the child.   The court ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 300,000 per month.        On 12 April 1991 the Warsaw Provincial Court (S*d Wojewódzki), upon the applicant's appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.     2.    Proceedings concerning defamation        As from the beginning of 1991 the applicant, in his numerous claims, petitions and appeals, made statements which related personally to several judges of the Warsaw courts.   He described them as mentally and emotionally unfit to dispense justice; he also alleged that they had forged evidence.        On 5 February 1992 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant of defamation of the judges concerned.   The applicant appealed against the above judgment.        Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy) ordered that the appellate proceedings should be conducted before the Skierniewice Provincial Court, since the defamation concerned certain judges of the Warsaw Provincial Court.        In the meantime the applicant requested the Skierniewice Provincial Court to take evidence confirming that he had been prompted to issue the statements in question in view of the judges' prejudiced attitude to his cases.        On 29 June 1993 the Skierniewice Provincial Court refused to take the evidence requested and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.   3.    Proceedings relating to child maintenance        On 19 June 1991 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 400,000 per month. On 2 October 1991 the court ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 600,000 per month.        On 22 February 1992 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of 2 October 1991 and dismissed the claim.        On 9 June 1993 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 600,000 per month.        On 1 February 1994, the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon both parties' appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.        On 24 July 1996 the applicant's ex-wife requested the Warsaw District Court to order him to pay child maintenance in the amount of new PLZ 250 per month.        On 19 August and 19 December 1996 a hearing   before the Warsaw District Court took place.   The proceedings are currently pending.     4.    Proceedings concerning insult        On 2 October 1991 the applicant and two other members of the Defence of Fathers' Rights Association put a board at the entrance to the Warsaw courts. At the top of the board there was a headline: "Criminals of Justice", followed by a list of the names of eight judges of the Warsaw courts and three court experts, with the following comments: "scoundrels", "shufflers", "provocateurs".        On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with publicly insulting the persons concerned.        On 28 February 1992 the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court.        Subsequently, the case-file was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Zyrardów District Court since the insult concerned judges of the Warsaw courts.        On 13 November 1992 the Zyrardów District Court found the applicant and his two co-defendants guilty although it decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against them.        On 26 November 1992 the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Skierniewice Provincial Court.        In the meantime, on an unspecified date, apparently after 1 May 1993, he requested the appellate court to stay proceedings since he had been detained on remand on 27 April 1993 in the assault case.     5.    Proceedings relating to permission to obtain a passport for the      child        Meanwhile, on 8 August 1991 the applicant's ex-wife requested the Warsaw District Court to grant her permission to obtain a passport for their daughter in view of the fact that the applicant had failed to give his consent to the issue of a passport for the child.        On 27 April 1993 the Warsaw District Court granted the permission.   When the presiding judge was pronouncing the decision, the applicant assaulted her.   He was arrested in the court.        The applicant appealed against the decision of 27 April 1993.        On 12 October 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint challenging the impartiality of all judges sitting in the Warsaw Provincial Court. He requested in particular that the present case be transferred to another province.        In the meantime, a group of ten judges of the Warsaw courts requested the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny) to exempt them from dealing with the applicant's cases.   They submitted that the applicant had insulted them in the past and that, in view of his violent behaviour on 27 April 1993, they were not able to deal with his cases.        On 21 November 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of all judges sitting in the Warsaw Court of Appeal.   In the meantime these judges submitted declarations to the effect that there was no personal or any other relation between them and the applicant or his ex-wife which could prejudice them in the course of dealing with these parties' cases.        On 31 January 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's challenge of 21 November 1994.        On 1 June 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ruled on the applicant's complaint of 12 October 1994.   It held that the challenge to the impartiality of the judges of the Warsaw Provincial Court was ill-founded in view of the lack of any objective appearance of bias or prejudice.   The court also referred to the judges' request and held that the interests of justice did not require them to be exempted from dealing with the applicant's cases in the future.        On 23 November 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the applicant's appeal, upheld the decision of the Warsaw District Court of 27 April 1993.     6.    Proceedings relating to the claim against the K company        On 27 February 1992 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation with the Warsaw District Court requesting a payment of PLZ 100,000 from the K company.        Meanwhile, on an unspecified date, the applicant's case was transferred to the Warsaw Provincial Court because that court had jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter.        On 16 July 1993 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the claim since the applicant had not complied with formal requirements.        On 3 September 1993 the applicant appealed against the above decision.        On 12 October 1993 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the applicant's appeal as being lodged out of time.        On 2 November 1993 the applicant appealed against the above decision. On the same day he requested the court to grant him retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 16 July 1993.   On 22 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to grant him legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees.        On 26 January 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the applicant partial exemption from court fees in respect of his appeal against the decision of 12 October 1993.        On 4 March 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 12 October 1993 and held that the issue of a possible grant of retrospective leave to appeal out of time had to be examined separately by the Warsaw Provincial Court following a hearing.        On 14 June 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the applicant's request to grant him retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 16 July 1993.        On 24 October 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the applicant's appeal, quashed the above decision and referred the case back to the court of first instance to establish all circumstances concerning the reasons for which the applicant had not complied with the time-limit.        On 31 May 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the applicant retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 16 July 1993 and ordered his appeal of 3 September 1993 to be referred to the Warsaw Court of Appeal.        On 29 November 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the rejection of his claim as being manifestly ill-founded.     7.    Proceedings relating to the claim against the Minister of the      Interior        In 1992, on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim against the Minister of the Interior with the Warsaw Provincial Court. He claimed PLZ 20,000 in compensation for the fact that in 1986 certain police officers had failed properly to conduct investigations against persons who had assaulted him.        On 21 October 1992 the court, upon the applicant's request, granted him legal assistance and exemption from court fees.        On 18 May 1993 the applicant increased the amount of the compensation claimed to PLZ 50,000.        Further statements were filed by the parties on 24 May 1993 and on 18 August 1993.       On 28 October 1993 a hearing took place.   The applicant again increased the amount of the compensation claimed, to PLZ 95,000, and requested the court to take further evidence.   On 28 December 1993 the court held the next hearing.        On 2 February 1994 the applicant submitted a further statement. He requested the court to take further evidence from witnesses, documents and medical experts' reports.        On 30 March 1994 the court held a hearing.   It took evidence from the applicant and dismissed his requests for further evidence to be taken.   On the same day the court gave judgment and dismissed the claim.        On 13 September 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the court of first instance and referred the case back to that court in order for further evidence to be taken.        On 28 December 1994 the applicant submitted a statement and requested that evidence be taken from three witnesses and two medical experts.        On 1 February 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence from a witness.        On 28 June and 8 September 1995 medical experts submitted reports.        On 10 October and 14 November 1995 the applicant requested the court to take further evidence from an orthopaedist and documentary evidence.        On 21 November 1995 the applicant's lawyer submitted a statement and requested the court to take further evidence from witnesses.        On 15 December 1995 the court took evidence from a cardiologist and, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the hearing.        On 19 December 1995 the applicant submitted a statement, contesting the report prepared by a cardiologist.        On 15 May 1996 the court held a hearing and took evidence from an orthopaedist and the applicant.   The court dismissed the applicant's request for it to take further evidence.        On 23 May 1996 the Warsaw Provincial Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant's claim and revoking the exemption from court fees granted on 2 February 1992.        On 30 November 1996 the applicant filed an appeal against the above judgment.   The proceedings are pending.   8.    Proceedings relating to the claim against the Minister of Justice        In 1992, on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim for compensation against the Minister of Justice with the Warsaw Provincial Court.   He claimed compensation of PLZ 60,000 on the basis that the court which had dealt with his cases had lacked impartiality and the judges had abused their power.        On 10 June 1993 the applicant increased the amount of the compensation sought.        On 5 November 1993 he requested the Warsaw Provincial Court to grant him legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees.        On 25 February 1994 the applicant again increased the amount of the compensation claimed to PLZ 620,000.        On 20 April 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the applicant exemption from court fees exceeding the amount of PLZ 150.        On 12 August 1994 the applicant again requested the Warsaw Provincial Court to be exempted from court fees.   On 23 November 1994 he again requested legal assistance.        On 30 December 1994 the applicant filed a further statement and again increased the amount of the compensation claimed.   He also requested a general exemption from court fees.        On 27 February 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court dismissed the applicant's request and held that the applicant had already been exempted from court fees exceeding the amount of PLZ 150.        On 24 May 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the applicant's appeal, quashed the above decision and found that the requests for legal assistance and a further exemption from court fees should be reconsidered.        On 25 July 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court refused to grant the applicant legal assistance.   On 13 September 1995 the same court refused to grant him a further exemption from court fees.        On 29 September 1995 the court, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the hearing.   On the same day the applicant appealed against the refusal to grant him legal assistance.        On 20 December 1995 the court, upon both parties' request, adjourned a hearing.        On 5 January 1996 the applicant again increased the amount of compensation claimed.   He again requested the court to grant him a general exemption from court fees.        On 21 February 1996 the court adjourned the hearing since the applicant, having been duly summoned, had failed to appear.        On 22 April 1996 the court, following a hearing, rejected the applicant's appeal against the refusal to grant him legal assistance since the appeal had been lodged out of time.        On 10 June 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision rejecting his appeal as being lodged out of time.   The proceedings are pending.     9.    Proceedings relating to custody        On 30 March 1993 the applicant lodged a petition with the Warsaw District Court requesting that the divorce judgment of 3 December 1990 be altered with respect to the custody arrangements, i.e. that sole custody be granted to him.        On 26 April 1993 the applicant's ex-wife submitted her pleadings, opposing the petition.        On 27 April 1993 the applicant was arrested in the course of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.   As a result, the proceedings were suspended until 22 November 1993.        In the meantime the applicant requested the court to call nine witnesses and his ex-wife requested it to call two witnesses.   On 24 February 1994 the applicant requested the court to call one more witness.        On 17 March 1994 a hearing took place.   The court took evidence from six witnesses and, on the parties' request, adjourned the hearing in order to call seven additional witnesses proposed by them.        On 12 April 1994 the next hearing took place.   The court heard only four witnesses since the others were not present.   The hearing was adjourned in order to call the absent witnesses.        In the meantime the applicant submitted a formal request for evidence to be taken by the Gdansk District Court from a witness residing in Gdansk.        On 24 June 1994 the Gdansk District Court took evidence from the applicant's witness.        On 11 July 1994 the court decided to call evidence from psychologist experts in order to assess whether altering the custody arrangements was in the best interest of the child.   The case-file was sent to the Family Diagnostic Centre in Warsaw.        On 26 September 1994 the Family Diagnostic Centre submitted its report.   The experts assessed the existing custody arrangements and concluded that altering them was not recommended.        On 4 and 30 November 1994 the court, on the applicant's ex-wife's request, adjourned the hearing.   The hearing was held on 20 January 1995.   The court took further evidence from the experts. The applicant contested the experts' report and requested the court to call other experts.        On 10 February 1995 the applicant requested the court to take evidence from a further witness.        On 7 March 1995 the applicant's ex-wife submitted a statement, requesting the court to grant her permission to take her daughter to Norway.        On 17 March 1995 the court, on the applicant's ex-wife's request, cancelled the hearing.        On 19 June 1995 the court held a hearing.   The court took evidence from three witnesses and the applicant.        On the same day the court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant's request to alter the custody arrangements and it granted his ex-wife permission to take the child to Norway.        On 25 October 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of 19 June 1995 and referred the case back to that court.   The proceedings are apparently pending.     10.   Proceedings concerning assault        On 27 April 1993, while the presiding judge of the Warsaw District Court was pronouncing a decision granting the applicant's ex- wife permission to obtain a passport for their child, the applicant assaulted the judge, hitting and kicking her several times.   He also called her a "drunk judge".   On the same day he was arrested.        On 29 April 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor charged the applicant with assault causing actual bodily harm and insult and detained him on remand until 27 May 1993 in view of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question.        On the same day the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the detention order which was upheld on 14 May 1993.        In the meantime the applicant was transferred from Bialol*ka prison to the Warsaw Mokotów Prison Hospital to undergo psychiatric observation, which psychiatric experts had considered necessary.        Subsequently, the applicant submitted numerous complaints concerning prison conditions, for instance that his fellow-inmates smoked; that his complaints had not been sufficiently considered; that cells were draughty and stinking; that the blankets were dirty; and that he had only cold water to wash himself.        On 21 May 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant's detention on remand until 27 July 1993 in order to ensure the proper course of proceedings.        On 11 June 1993 the applicant requested the Warsaw District Prosecutor to take evidence from psychiatric experts in order to assess the mental health of the judges who had dealt with his cases concerning divorce, maintenance and custody.   This request was dismissed on 21 June 1993.        On 20 July 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant's detention until 27 October 1993 in order to ensure the proper course of proceedings.        On 11 August 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor quashed the detention order.   The applicant was released on the same day.        On 9 September 1993 the Governor of the Warsaw Mokotów Prison found that the applicant's complaints about prison conditions were unsubstantiated.        Between 16 September 1993 and 8 October 1993 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination in the Pruszków Mental Hospital.        On 30 November 1993 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw District Court which on 2 March 1994 held a hearing.   It took evidence from the applicant and six witnesses.        On 24 March 1994 the court, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the hearing.        On 13 April 1994 the court held a hearing and took further evidence from witnesses.   On the same day, the court ordered further investigations and referred the case back to the Warsaw District Prosecutor.        On 27 April 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon both parties' appeal, quashed the order of 13 April 1994 and ruled that the case should proceed to be examined.        On 12 July 1994 the court adjourned a further hearing since the applicant was ill.   The case was referred back to the Warsaw District Prosecutor in order for him to supplement the charges against the applicant.        On 30 December 1994 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court.        On 15 February 1995 a hearing was scheduled.   However, the applicant's counsel requested the court to adjourn it since the applicant was ill.   The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the applicant to submit a medical certificate endorsed by the court's expert on pain of being arrested.        On 24 March 1995 the applicant's lawyer again requested the court to adjourn the subsequent hearing since the applicant was ill. However, he failed to submit a proper certificate.   The court issued a warrant to arrest the applicant in order to ensure the proper course of proceedings.        On 26 March 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge.        On 12 April 1995 at 9.50 p.m. the applicant was arrested.        On 13 April 1995 at 9.10 a.m. a hearing commenced.   The applicant again challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge and asked for the hearing to be adjourned.   He also requested the court to refer his case to the Supreme Court in order for it to be transferred to another court as, in his view, the interests of justice so required.   The hearing was adjourned.   The case was referred to the Supreme Court.        On 2 June 1995 the Supreme Court refused to transfer the case to another court.   The court found that there were no objective and reasonable grounds for such measures.   In addition, the court held that the mere fact that the injured party was a judge did not suffice to shed doubts on the impartiality of the presiding judge and the Warsaw District Court as a whole.   Otherwise, all other Polish courts would have to be exempted from dealing with the applicant's case.        On 21 September 1995 a hearing took place.   The court took evidence from the injured party.   The applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing in order to call absent witnesses.        On 17 October 1995 the next hearing was held.   The court took evidence from two witnesses.   The parties requested the court to adjourn the hearing and to take further evidence.        On 24 November 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence from two witnesses.   The parties requested the court to adjourn the hearing and take further evidence.        On 21 December 1995, 9 and 20 February 1996 the court, upon the applicant's request, cancelled the hearing.        On 8 March 1996 the next hearing took place.   The court took evidence from one witness and three psychiatric experts.        On 11 March 1996 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant of assault committed in a state of diminished responsibility and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of PLZ 200.        On 17 May 1996 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance.   On 1 July 1996 the applicant lodged a supplementary appeal.        On 31 October 1996 an appellate hearing before the Warsaw Provincial Court was cancelled as the applicant had dismissed his defence counsel a day before the hearing.        On the same day the Warsaw Provincial Court appointed a new lawyer for the applicant.        On 18 November 1996 an appellate hearing was adjourned since on 15 November 1996 the applicant had again requested the court to refer his case to the Supreme Court for another provincial court to be assigned to examine his appeal.        On 3 December 1996 the Warsaw Provincial Court dismissed the request as being manifestly ill-founded.        On 4 December 1996 the appeal hearing was held.   The applicant did not appear; he was represented by his lawyer. The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and, upon the prosecutor's appeal, amended the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the penalty imposed.   The applicant was finally sentenced to four years' imprisonment.        On 8 March 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Warsaw Provincial Court of 4 December 1996.   The proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court.     11.   Proceedings   concerning the assessment of disability        On 22 June 1994 the Warsaw Social Security issued a decision according to which the applicant suffered from a third degree disability.   The applicant appealed against the above decision to the Warsaw Provincial Court of Labour and Social Security (S*d Wojewódzki - S*d Pracy i Ubezpieczen Spolecznych).   He submitted that in view of his state of health he had a second degree disability.        Subsequently, the court, upon the applicant's request, decided to take evidence from various experts.   Their reports were submitted on 22 March, 5 April and 21 May 1995, respectively.        On 6 July 1995 the court, upon the applicant's request, cancelled the hearing.        On 21 September 1995 the court held a hearing and, upon the applicant's request, ordered evidence from another medical expert.   The expert's report which was submitted on 23 September 1995 concluded that the applicant suffered from a third degree disability.        On 21 November 1995 a hearing took place.   The applicant did not appear although he had been duly summoned.   On the same day the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 22 June 1994.        On 2 January 1996 the applicant appealed against the above judgment to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny).        On 25 January 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.     12.   The applicant's requests to institute criminal proceedings      against third persons        Between 1991 and 1997 the applicant lodged numerous requests with the Warsaw District Prosecutor.   He requested the Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against judges, prosecutors, certain court experts, police officers, his ex-wife and several other persons. All of the applicant's requests were dismissed by the District Prosecutor and, on appeal, by the Warsaw Provincial Prosecutor.     COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the divorce proceedings were conducted unfairly as the courts committed serious errors of fact and law in their decisions.   2.    In respect of the defamation proceedings the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Skierniewice Provincial Court refused to take evidence requested by him, which resulted in his unjustified conviction.   3.    He complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the child maintenance proceedings were conducted unfairly since the courts committed serious errors of fact and law.   4.    Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the insult proceedings were conducted unfairly and that the authorities lacked impartiality.   5.    He also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to permission to issue a passport for his child.   6.    The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the K company.   7.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the Minister of the Interior.   8.    He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the Minister of Justice.   9.    The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the unfairness and the length of the custody proceedings.   10.   He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings instituted against him for assaulting the judge were conducted unfairly and that their length exceeded a "reasonable time" within the meaning of this provision.   11.   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the outcome and the length of the proceedings relating to the re- assessment of the degree of his disability.   12.   The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that the length of detention on remand imposed on him in the assault case exceeded a reasonable time.   13.   He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the unhygienic conditions of his detention on remand amounted to inhuman treatment.   14.   The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention, that he was unable to institute criminal proceedings against third persons.   15.   Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant submits that the general conduct of his cases by the Polish authorities interfered with his rights guaranteed under this provision.   He complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to express his opinion about the Polish judiciary and other organs.   Under Articles 13 and 18 of the Convention he alleges that he had no effective domestic remedy against the violations of his human rights.   Finally, under Article 14 of the Convention he claims that in the course of all the proceedings relating to his family life he was discriminated against on the ground of his sex.     THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention about the unfairness and the outcome of various proceedings in which he was involved.   a)    The Commission notes that the applicant's complaints relate in part to a period prior to 1 May 1993, i.e. the date on which Poland's declaration acknowledging the right of individual petition took effect. Since, in that declaration Poland limited the Commission's competence to facts subsequent to the declaration, the Commission, by reason of its competence ratione temporis, can only examine the applicant's complaints insofar as they relate to the period after this date.   b)    With regard to the applicant's complaints about judicial decisions which were given after 1 May 1993, the Commission recalls 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 to 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).   c)    The applicant complains about the unfairness, in particular, of the maintenance proceedings which commenced on 24 July 1996, the custody proceedings, the proceedings concerning assault and the proceedings directed against the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior.   However, the Commission notes that these proceedings are still pending and no final decisions have yet been given by the domestic courts.   It follows that in this respect the application is premature and that this part of the application must, therefore, be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    In respect of the defamation proceedings the applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the Skierniewice Provincial Court refused to take evidence requested by him, which resulted in his unjustified conviction.        The Commission recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law.   As a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them whereas it is the Commission's task to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).        In the present case the Commission finds no elements which would indicate that the court went beyond its discretion to refuse to take evidence in the course of the proceedings complained of.        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings instituted against him for publicly insulting judges were conducted unfairly and that the authorities lacked impartiality.        The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to submit any material relating to the course of these proceedings after 26 November 1992, i.e. the date on which he lodged an appeal against the decision of the court of first instance.        The Commission has nevertheless examined the applicant's complaints as they have been submitted.   However, it finds no indication that in the course of the proceedings complained of the applicant's right to a fair trial was not respected or that the courts lacked impartiality.        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.    The applicant also raises various complaints under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the unreasonable length and unfairness of several proceedings in which he was involved.        The Commission, by reason of its competence ratione temporis, can examine the applicant's complaints only insofar as they relate to proceedings as from 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland's declaration acknowledging the right of individual petition with a temporal limitation took effect.   However, the Commission can take into account, in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the proceedings at the beginning of the period under consideration (No. 7984/77, Dec. 11.7.79, D.R. 16 p. 92).        According to the Convention organs' case-law, the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see Eur. Court HR, Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).   a)    The applicant complains, first, about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to permission to issue a passport for his child.        The proceedings in question commenced on 8 August 1991 and ended on 23 November 1995.   However, the period to be considered as from 1 May 1993 lasted two years, six months and twenty-two days.   The Commission finds that in the conduct of these proceedings the Polish authorities acted with the diligence required under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   It also notes that the applicant's repeated challenges to the impartiality of the competent courts could have contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in this case.      Insofar as the applicant complains about the unfairness of the proceedings referred to, the Commission finds no indication that the applicant could not put forward his point of view in the course of these proceedings or that they were otherwise unfairly conducted.   b)    The applicant complains, secondly, about the length of proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the K company.        The proceedings commenced on 27 February 1992 and ended on 29 November 1995.   The period to be considered under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention must be calculated from 1 May 1993 and, therefore, amounts to two years, six months and twenty-eight days.   The Commission observes that the Warsaw District Court rejected the applicant's claim on 16 July 1993.   The subsequent proceedings related solely to the issues of the retrospective leave to appeal out of time, the rejection of the claim for non-compliance with formal requirements and the grant of an exemption from court fees.   Even assuming that Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable, the Commission does not find that, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the Polish authorities failed to act with the necessary diligence in this case.   c)    The applicant complains, thirdly, about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the Minister of the Interior.        The proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in 1992 and are currently pending.   The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993, currently exceeds three years and ten months.   The period in question relates to the proceedings before the court of first instance, the appeal proceedings, the subsequent proceedings before the court of first instance and further appeal proceedings which are pending.   The applicant twice increased the amount of compensation claimed and lodged numerous requests for the court to take evidence.   The Commission finds that the Polish authorities conducted the case with the diligence required under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   On the other hand, the applicant contributed to   the length of the proceedings in the way he chose to argue his case.   d)    The applicant complains, fourthly, about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the Minister of Justice.        The proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in 1992 and are pending.   The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993, currently exceeds three years and ten months.   In the course of these proceedings the applicant increased the amount of the compensation claimed on four occasions, filed five requests for legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees, and lodged three appeals.   In the meantime, the court held four hearings.   The Commission finds that the courts displayed the necessary diligence in the conduct of these proceedings.   Moreover, possible delays in the proceedings could have resulted from the applicant's various requests and appeals.   e)    The applicant complains, fifthly, about the unfairness and the length of the custody proceedings.        The proceedings commenced on 30 March 1993 and are apparently pending.   The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993, currently exceeds three years and ten months.   The Commission, however, notes that the applicant has failed to submit any information as to the course of these proceedings after 25 October 1995, i.e. the date on which the Warsaw Provincial Court quashed the judgment of the court of first instance.   In the light of the material submitted, the Commission finds that this case was a complex one since evidence needed to be taken from numerous witnesses proposed by the parties as well as from experts.   In the meantime, the case was examined at first instance and on appeal.   In view of the complexity and volume of the case, the Commission does not consider that the Polish authorities failed to act with the diligence required in the conduct of such cases.   Nor does the Commission find that the applicant's conduct caused any undue delays in the course of the proceedings complained of.   f)    The applicant complains, sixthly, that the criminal proceedings instituted against him for assaulting the judge were conducted unfairly and that their length exceeded a "reasonable time".        The proceedings in question commenced on 27 April 1993 when the applicant was arrested and they are pending.   The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993, currently exceeds three years and ten months.   During this time the court of first instance held fourteen hearings.   On ten occasions the hearings were adjourned or cancelled on the parties' or the applicant's request or because of his absence.   Assessing the facts as a whole, the Commission finds that the courts displayed the reasonable level of diligence required in the conduct of such cases.   However, the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in view of the number of his requests to adjourn or cancel the hearings.   g)    The applicant complains, seventhly, about the outcome and the length of the proceedings relating to the re-assessment of the degree of his disability.        The proceedings in question commenced on 22 June 1994 and ended on 25 January 1996.   Thus, they lasted one year, six months and three days. The case was complex as it involved a need to take evidence from various medical experts who were called on the applicant's request. Moreover, it does not transpire from the material submitted that there were any delays in the proceedings which could be attributed to the respective courts.   h)    As a consequence, the Commission finds that this part of the applicant's complaints does not disclose any appearance