CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 janvier 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. 25086/94                     by Bronislawa PROSZAK                     against Poland        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 17 January 1995, the following members being present:             Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON                S. TRECHSEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY             Mr.   K. ROGGE, 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 28 April 1994 by Bronislawa PROSZAK against Poland and registered on 6 September 1994 under file No. 25086/94;        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, a Polish citizen born in 1926, is a pensioner residing in Stalowa Wola.                                 I.        In 1985 the applicant's son died.   The   investigations into the causes of his death were eventually terminated as no criminal offence had been committed.        On 13 May 1986 the psychiatrist B. M. issued a medical certificate that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia.        On 12 February 1992 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that an investigation relating to the medical certificate issued in 1986 would be undertaken.        On 22 June 1992 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that investigations into the causes of her son's death would be resumed.   On 3 August 1992 the Stalowa Wola District Prosecutor resumed investigations and on 31 December 1992 decided to terminate them as it had been established that no criminal offence had been committed.   The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision.        On 23 April 1993 the applicant requested the Minister of Justice to reopen criminal proceedings concerning the death of her son.        On 30 September 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Prosecutor confirmed the refusal to institute criminal proceedings relating to the death of the applicant's son.                                 II.        On 20 December 1988 the applicant was assaulted and beaten by her neighbour R.T.   On 29 November 1989 the Stalowa Wola District Court (S*d Rejonowy w Stalowej Woli) convicted the latter of assault and causing bodily harm and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.   On 12 March 1990 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki w Tarnobrzegu) decided to discontinue the proceedings by virtue of the Amnesty Act.        On 25 October 1990 the applicant filed a civil action with the Stalowa Wola District Court against R.T. claiming compensation of five million zloty for damage resulting from the assault.   At an unspecified later date she increased her claim.        On 23 February 1993 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination ordered by the Stalowa Wola District Court for the purposes of the civil proceedings for compensation.        On 8 June 1993 the Court held a hearing in the civil proceedings and heard a psychiatrist as an expert.        On 18 June 1993 the applicant refused to undergo a further psychiatric examination.   She contended that there were sufficient documents in the case-file relating to her mental health as she had already been examined by psychiatrists at least twice in the course of the proceedings.   She pointed out that she did not understand how a further psychiatric examination of the victim of the assault could be useful for the determination of the civil liability of the defender.        On 7 September 1993 the applicant informed the Court that she had been unable to attend a hearing on 2 September 1993 for health reasons and submitted a medical certificate to this effect.   She also complained about the length of the proceedings.        Subsequently the applicant complained to the President of the Stalowa Wola District Court about the prolongation of the proceedings. On 18 October 1993 the President informed her that this was in part due to her refusal to undergo a further medical examination.   He found no indications of lack of diligence on the part of the Court.        On 26 October 1993 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of the proceedings.   She submitted that the President of the Court had failed to reply to three of her complaints. She challenged the judge claiming that she had not diligently dealt with the case and was biased against the applicant.   On 2 November 1993 the Ministry transmitted this letter to the President of the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court.        On 16 November 1993 the applicant requested to be examined by a psychiatrist specialised in the syndrome of former prisoners of the German concentration camps as she had been imprisoned in Ravensbrück during the Second World War.        Subsequently the applicant formally challenged the judge on the grounds that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.        On 10 March 1994 the District Court in Stalowa Wola dismissed the applicant's challenge of the judge as lacking a basis in law.        The applicant apparently appealed against this decision, but her appeal was rejected as not complying with the formal requirements.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that the length of the civil proceedings exceeds a reasonable time as no complex issues are involved.   She contends that there were several periods of inactivity in the proceedings;   that the Court is unable to determine the steps to be taken and that there is therefore no progress in the proceedings at least since September 1993.   The applicant relies on Article 6 of the Convention.        She complains that the medical certificate issued in 1986 ruined her reputation and caused her inconveniences and annoyance.        She further complains that the Ministry of Justice refused to reopen the criminal proceedings concerning the death of her son.        The applicant alleges that she is persecuted by her former husband and his wife, her neighbours and other persons.        The applicant does not invoke any particular provision of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that the medical certificate issued in 1986 ruined her reputation and resulted in inconveniences and annoyance.        The Commission recalls that Poland recognised the competence of the Commission to receive individual applications "from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individual 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).   2.    The applicant complains that the Public Prosecutor refused to reopen the criminal proceedings concerning the death of her son. However, the Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted or reopened against third parties.   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 alleges that she is persecuted by her former husband and his wife, her neighbours and other persons.   As these complaints concern private persons, it follows that they are incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.    The applicant finally complains about the length of the civil proceedings which were instituted in October 1990 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 on 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            (K. ROGGE)                      (H. DANELIUS)