CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 18 octobre 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. 23980/94                       by Stanislawa JACKIEWICZ                       against Poland         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 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 15 December 1993 by Stanislawa JACKIEWICZ against Poland and registered on 26 April 1994 under file No. 23980/94;         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 is a Polish citizen, born in 1926.   She is a retired nurse, residing in Kraków.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:         On 19 June 1992 the applicant's 90-year-old mother was admitted to Kraków State hospital with cardiac insufficiency.   On 20 June 1992 her condition improved after she had been given an intravenous drip. On 21 June her condition deteriorated rapidly and on 22 June 1992 she died.         The applicant filed a complaint with the Chamber of Physicians (Izba Lekarska) against a chief physician of the ward alleging that her mother had died as a result of negligence, a medical experiment carried out in the course of the treatment and of poisoning.         On 24 February 1993 the Attorney General for professional liability (Rzecznik Odpowiedzialnosci Zawodowej) terminated the investigations of the case considering that no professional misconduct had been established.   He stated that the applicant's mother had been admitted to the hospital with cardiac insufficiency and generalised arteriosclerosis.   She had been given cardiac and dehydrating medicines.   In addition, she had been given an intravenous drip, as she could not eat.   The applicant had not adduced any specific evidence to substantiate her allegations other than her mother's death.   The Attorney General considered that the lack of recovery of a 90-year-old patient with cardiac insufficiency was a normal phenomenon which would not in itself justify a suspicion of malpractice or poisoning.   The treatment adopted was typical of that used in similiar cases and the allegation of a "medical experiment" could not be seriously considered. On the applicant's request no dissection had been performed.   In the same request the applicant had stated that she did not have any objections to the medical treatment which her mother had received.         On 16 August 1993 the Court of the National Chamber of Physicians upheld this decision.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains that her mother died as a result of negligence and poisoning by the physicians.   She complains of the unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings before the Chamber of Physicians, which cleared the chief physician of liability for her mother's death, disregarding all her arguments.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains that her mother died as a result of negligence and poisoning by the physicians.   The Commission notes that the death occurred on 22 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, even assuming that the death of the applicant's mother due to allegedly wrong treatment in a State hospital could raise an issue under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention, the Commission observes that the facts alleged, as they occurred before 30 April 1993, are outside its competence ratione temporis and therefore the applicant's complaints in this respect must 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 complains of the unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings before the organs of the Chamber of Physicians, which cleared the chief physician of all liability for her mother's death, disregarding all her arguments.   As the final decision was given after the date from which Poland has recognised the right of individual petition, the Commission cannot reject this complaint as being outside its competence ratione temporis. The Commission has therefore examined whether the impugned procedure comes within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which states, insofar as relevant:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of       any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair       hearing... "         However, the Commission notes that the applicant did not choose to institute proceedings before a civil court in order to claim compensation.   Instead, she instituted proceedings concerning the professional liability of the physician.   The Commission considers that these proceedings were by their nature disciplinary in character and did not concern the determination of the applicant's civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against her. Therefore Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is not applicable to the proceedings at issue.         It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         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)