CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 octobre 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. 27702/95                Application No. 28355/95 by Janusz KWASKIEWICZ                   by Daniel SUTARZEWICZ against Poland                          against Poland   Application No. 28237/95                Application No. 28556/95 by Mieczyslaw LESNIEWSKI                by Wieslaw GORCZAK against Poland                          against Poland         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 October 1996, 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                  L. LOUCAIDES                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA              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 applications introduced on 12 December 1994, 6 December 1994, 12 December 1994 and 20 November 1994 by Janusz KWASKIEWICZ, Mieczyslaw LESNIEWSKI, Daniel SUTARZEWICZ and Wieslaw GORCZAK against Poland and registered on 26 June 1995, 18 August 1995, 29 August 1995 and 18 September 1995 under files No. 27702/95, 28237/95, 28355/95 and 28556/95;         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 facts, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:         The applicants are four Polish citizens.   J. Kwaskiewicz and D. Sutarzewicz are born in 1934 and 1925 respectively.   M. Lesniewski and W. Gorczak are born in 1930.   M. Lesniewski is a retired technician, residing in Pruszków, the other applicants are retired engineers, residing in Warsaw.         All of them worked at the State Railways, respectively as from 1956, 1954, 1950 and 1951.   They retired from the post in the Railways' engineering design branch respectively in December 1992, December 1990, October 1990 and in January 1990.         On 1 January 1992 the Railways' engineering design branch was detached from the general structure of the Railways and given a separate status.         On 20 June 1992 the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices was enacted.   It provided in Article 7 that entitlements to the tickets at reduced prices were in principle abolished, with certain exceptions only.   It further invalidated relevant provisions of numerous industrial collective agreements, concerning many categories of civil servants.   Its Article 8 provided that the public transport companies could maintain such entitlement for their employees and retired employees, should they wish to do so.         On 12 January 1993 the State Railways' Director General issued an Order No. 4, which maintained the entitlement to reduced prices of the tickets for its retired employees, but took this entitlement away from the retired employees of the Railways' engineering design branch. The Order further took away the entitlement to use the Railways' medical services for this group of retired employees in view of the fact that in 1991 this branch had been detached from the general structure of the Railways and given a separate status.         On 17 November 1993 the Ombudsman requested that the Constitutional Court (Trybunal Konstytucyjny) examine whether Articles 7 and 9 of the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices were compatible with the Constitution, in particular its Articles 1, 67 paras. 1 and 2 and 70 paras. 1 and 2 (1). The Ombudsman further requested that the Court determine whether the Order No. 4 of 12 January 1993 was compatible with certain statutes and in particular with Article 8 of the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices, and with Articles 1, 67 paras. 1 and 2 and 70 paras. 1 and 2 (1) of the Constitution.   The National Committee of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union submitted a similar request.         On 21 June 1994 the Constitutional Court held a hearing.   The Court heard the representatives of the Ombudsman and of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union, of the Parliament, of the Ministry of Transport and of the Prosecutor General.         In the judgment of 28 June 1994 the Constitutional Court declared that the impugned provisions of the Act on the Entitlement to Public Transport Free of Charge or at Reduced Prices and of the Director General's Order No. 4 of 12 January 1993 were compatible with the Constitution.     Relevant domestic law         Article 33 of the Polish Constitution of 1952 which remains in force by virtue of Article 77 of the Constitutional Act of 17 October 1992 provides that the Constitutional Court gives rulings on the conformity of legislation with the Constitution.   It also promulgates binding interpretations of law.         Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitutional Court Act provide an exhaustive list of institutions who can request the Court to decide whether a particular regulation is compatible with the Constitution or with statutes.   This list includes the President, the Presidium of the Parliament, the parliamentary commissions, a group of fifty members of the Parliament, the Presidium of the Senate, the commissions of the Senate, a group of thirty senators, the State Tribunal, the Government, the Prime Minister, the Ombudsman, the President of the Highest Audit Chamber, the President of the Supreme Court, the President of the Supreme Administrative Chamber and the General Prosecutor.   Such requests can also be submitted by the municipalities and national headquarters of certain associations.         There is no individual constitutional complaint to the Court under Polish law as a remedy against decisions of the courts or administrative authorities, nor can individual citizens submit requests for rulings on the compatibility of laws with the Constitution.     COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their right to life was breached in that they lost an entitlement to the medical care in the railway health services.         The applicants complain under Article 4 of the Convention that their former employer, by taking away their lawfully acquired entitlements, disregarded entirely its obligations towards them. They submit that their additional entitlements compensated for the low salary and that due to the decisions concerned their work acquired retrospectively a character of forced labour.   They complain that their retirement pensions are now lower than they would have been had they worked elsewhere.         The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were unfair in that the representatives of the railway engineering design branch pensioners were not allowed to present their position to the Court.   They submit that the outcome of the proceedings is unfair.         The applicants complain that the Constitutional Court did not rule on the issue of their entitlement to medical care in the Railway medical services.         The applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention that the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court amounted to discrimination against the former employees of the Railways' engineering branch.   They submit in this respect that the Court stated in its judgment that the special privileges of certain groups of retired employees "were characteristic of the (socialist) system and now they are its remainder".   THE LAW   1.     In view of their similarity, the Commission finds it appropriate to join the applications under Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure.   2.     The applicants complain under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention that their right to life was breached in that they lost an entitlement to medical care in the Railway health services.         Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads:         "1.   Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.   No one            shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the            execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction            of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."         The Commission observes that this provision of the Convention does not guarantee a right to certain specific health services. Moreover, in the circumstances of the case no loss of or even danger to life or limb is involved.   Therefore the situation complained of does not amount to a breach of the applicants' right to life within the meaning of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention. 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 applicants complains under Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention that   due to the decisions concerned their work acquired retrospectively a character of forced labour.         Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides:         "2.   No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory            labour."         Insofar as the applicants complain that as a result of the impugned decisions their work acquired retrospectively a character of forced labour, even assuming that such retroactive effect of the decision concerned could be considered, 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".   In accordance with this limitation in the Polish declaration, 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 this complaint is outside its competence ratione temporis and must be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   4.     The applicants complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair in that the persons whose entitlement was at stake were not heard at the hearing before the Constitutional Court.   They were thus deprived of the opportunity to present their arguments to the Court.   They submit that the outcome of the proceedings is unfair.   The applicants complain that the Constitutional Court did not rule on the issue of their entitlement to the medical care in the railway medical services.         Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in its relevant part reads:         "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations            ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an            independent and impartial tribunal..."         The Commission recalls that the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention depends on whether the proceedings at issue concern the determination of "civil rights and obligations".   The Commission observes that under Polish law an individual does not have standing in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.   In the present case, whereas it is true that the outcome of the proceedings had an influence on the applicants' entitlements, they were not and could not be a party to the proceedings.   Therefore the proceedings at issue did not concern the applicants' civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Thus this provision is inapplicable thereto.   It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         Insofar as the applicants' complaint can be understood as relating to lack of access to the Constitutional Court in order to challenge the compatibility with the Constitution of the legislation concerned, the Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not guarantee a right of access to a court with competence to invalidate or override a law (No. 14324/88, Rep. 14.9.91, D.R. 69 p. 227). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   5.     The applicants complain under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention that the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court amounted to discrimination against the former employees of the Railways' engineering design branch.         The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) has no independent existence, but only complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by those provisions (see Eur. Court HR, Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, p. 17, para. 36).   The Commission considers that no issue arises under this provision of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         1.    DECIDES TO JOIN THE APPLICATIONS,         2.    DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber