CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s55070D65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s8F345D62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s13D83ECC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify } .s614A38E2 { width:25.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s293857CE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s19469867 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .sDB36FD9B { width:15.98pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s3F3D6AF3 { width:32.98pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CBAA154 { width:25.88pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s747CA81F { width:26.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s87BE5810 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s8354CF86 { width:259.15pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 26277/95 by Czesław SZYŁAK against Poland     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 2 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   M. Pellonpää, President ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo,   Mr   L. Caflisch,   Mr   J. Makarczyk,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, judges ,   and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 28 November 1994 by Czesław Szyłak against Poland and registered on 24 January 1995 under file no. 26277/95;     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a Polish citizen, born in 1946 and living in Białystok, Poland.     A.   Particular circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   1.   The applicant’s requests to institute criminal proceedings against third parties   In 1989 the Białystok District Prosecutor discontinued criminal proceedings against A.A., who lived in the house purchased by the applicant. In the same year the court imposed fines on other members of the same family for assault, unlawful entry to the applicant’s home and for insulting the applicant. In 1990 the Białystok District Prosecutor discontinued criminal proceedings against another member of the A. family.   On 30 October 1992 the Białystok District Prosecutor discontinued criminal investigations agains a certain Ms K.W. on suspicion of uttering threats against the applicant.   On 30 September 1994 the Białystok District Prosecutor refused to institute, on the applicant’s request, criminal proceedings against various persons, finding that they had no case to answer and that the altercations between these persons and the applicant had originated against the background of a long-standing conflict between him and the tenants of apartments in the building of which he was the owner.     On 10 February 1995 the Białystok District Prosecutor discontinued investigations concerning allegations that various criminal offences had been committed against the applicant.     2.   Administrative proceedings concerning the construction permit for the annex to the applicant’s house   In July 1991 the Białystok District Office ordered the applicant to demolish the annex to his house which he had built, considering that he had not obtained the required construction permit.   In May 1992 the decision of the District Office was set aside as the applicable laws did not require a permit for a construction of an annex which would not significantly enlarge the original building.     3.   Criminal proceedings concerning an alleged offence against construction laws   In August 1991 the Administrative Offences Board found the applicant guilty of an offence against construction laws and imposed a fine on him. The applicant apparently requested that the case be reconsidered by a court in criminal proceedings.     In November 1991 the Białystok District Court decided that an expert opinion of psychiatrists be obtained in order to establish the applicant’s mental health at the time of the critical events.     On 9 April 1992 the police arrested the applicant and brought him to Pruszków psychiatric hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on the following day. Apparently, the criminal proceedings concerning the charges were later discontinued.     4.   Criminal proceedings concerning charges of offences committed in 1990   In 1990 the Białystok District Prosecutor ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric observation in the context of criminal proceedings on suspicion of coercion and destruction of property committed by removing windows from the apartments of tenants living in his house. In December 1990 Choroszcz Psychiatric hospital invited the applicant to report for examination. As the applicant refused to comply, in January 1991 he was arrested by the police and brought to the hospital. He was discharged after a week. Later in the same year a bill of indictment against the applicant was submitted to the Białystok District Court.   On 9 September 1991 this court ordered that the applicant should be examined in a mental hospital, the opinion prepared on the basis of his stay in hospital in January 1991 not reflecting his current health. As he refused to comply, on 9 April 1992 the police arrested him and brought him to Pruszków psychiatric hospital. He was discharged on the following day.   On 30 June 1992 the Białystok District Court convicted the applicant of two counts of coercion and defamation, and imposed on him a fine of 1,000,000 PLZ (old). On 2   December   1992 the Białystok Regional Court upheld this judgment. On 11 June 1993 the Minister of Justice refused to lodge an extraordinary appeal against it.     5.   Criminal proceedings concerning charges relating to offences committed in 1992     On 1 September 1990 the Białystok District Prosecutor charged the applicant with coercion, destruction of property, exposure to loss of health, assault and defamation. On 7   November 1992 the charges against the applicant were supplemented by further ones. On the whole, he was charged with commission of 36 offences. The Prosecutor ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination on an out-patient basis. As the psychiatrists found that it was impossible to give an objective assessment of the applicant’s health on the basis of one examination and as the applicant refused to comply with the order, on 3   March   1993 the Prosecutor ordered that he should be placed in Choroszcz psychiatric hospital for six-week’s observation. This decision was later quashed on the request of the hospital and the applicant’s examination in Pruszków Psychiatric hospital was ordered. The applicant was invited to report to the hospital for examination, but he refused.     Apparently later the case was transferred to the office of Wysokie Mazowieckie District Prosecutor. On 5 October 1993 the applicant was arrested on the order of the Wysokie Mazowieckie District Prosecutor. On 6 October 1993 the applicant was remanded in custody. He lodged an appeal against the detention order, however, and following a decision by the Wysokie Mazowieckie District Court allowing his appeal, he was released on 13   October 1993.   On 28 December 1993 the District Prosecutor of Wysokie Mazowieckie sent an indictment against the applicant to the District Court.     On 27 December 1995 the Wysokie Mazowieckie District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The Court found that the applicant had in his numerous letters proffered insults against various persons, including judges, prosecutors, agents of the State administration and psychiatrists involved in his psychiatric observations. However, the court observed that the applicant had been involved in many proceedings in which he had acquired a profound conviction that he had become a victim of an insidious and widespread conspiracy against him, and that, as a result, he developed a very strong negative emotional attitude towards the persons acting in their official capacity of State organs, bordering on psychosis. Thus, his actions could be regarded as being subjectively justified. On the objective side, the court analysed the applicant’s conduct and considered that, despite its repetitive character and the violence of his verbal insults, it could not be considered as representing a serious danger, and in view thereof found that the applicant had no case to answer.     6.   Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation for wrongful detention from 5 to 13 October 1993   On 10 January 1994 the applicant lodged with the Łomża Regional Court an action against the State Treasury, claiming compensation for unjustified arrest on 5 October 1993 and for detention on remand from 6 to 13 October 1993.     On 12 July 1994 the Łomża Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the arrest had been justified. The applicant lodged an appeal.     On 7 November 1994 the Białystok Court of Appeal set aside the decision under appeal and awarded to the applicant compensation of 20,000,000 PLZ (old). The court found that the Prosecutor had informed the applicant, by a letter of 22 April 1994, that the date of his psychiatric examination had been fixed for 5 October 1993 at 10.00 a.m. The Prosecutor had further warned the applicant that in case of his failure to comply with the summons, he would be taken to the hospital by the police. On the same day the Prosecutor ordered the police to arrest the applicant on 5 October 1993. The Court considered that this order had in fact made it impossible for the applicant to comply with the summons to the hospital. The Court further noted that, given that the criminal proceedings against the applicants had not been conducted diligently and that the applicant had been already questioned on several occasions by the Prosecutor, there was no indication that his arrest was, as argued by the Prosecutor in the order imposing detention on remand, necessary in order to secure the proper course of criminal proceedings. Moreover, there were no indications that the applicant’s remaining at liberty would jeopardise the proper conduct of the proceedings in any manner. The court concluded that the applicant’s detention was unjustified and in breach of the provisions concerning arrest and detention on remand.   Subsequently the Minister of Justice - Prosecutor General lodged an extraordinary appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.     On 28 June 1995 the Supreme Court allowed the Minister’s extraordinary appeal, quashed the decision of 7 November 1994, considering that in the view of the applicant’s repeated refusals to comply with the summonses to psychiatric examinations, his arrest and detention had been justified. 7.   Criminal proceedings concerning charges of uttering threats, instituted in 1994     On 28 September 1994 the Białystok District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having uttered threats. On 21 December 1994 the applicant was charged with uttering threats.     On 31 January 1995 the Białystok District Prosecutor ordered that the applicant should be examined by two psychiatrists and a psychologist so that his mental condition could be established.     By a letter of 4 April 1995 the Białystok District Prosecutor invited the applicant to report to Choroszcz psychiatric hospital on 19 April 1994. On the same date the Prosecutor issued an order for the police to carry out the applicant’s arrest on 19 April 1994.     On 19 April 1995 at 6.10 a m. the applicant was arrested by the police. Later the police brought him to Choroszcz hospital. He was discharged from the hospital at 11. 50 a.m. Apparently the applicant was later examined by a psychologist, who, in a report of 4   May 1995, concluded that he could be suffering from a situational paranoid syndrome.     On 4 March 1996 the Białystok District Court found the applicant guilty of uttering threats, considered that the applicant had at the critical time a diminished ability to understand the meaning of his acts, and sentenced him to a fine of 500   PLZ (new).     The applicant lodged an appeal. On 24 April 1994 the Białystok District Court imposed on him a fine of 600 PLZ, considering that the appeal contained vulgar insults of the court.     On 3 June 1996 the Białystok Regional Court set the judgment under appeal aside and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court found that the findings of fact made by the lower court were well founded. The court went on to state that, taking into account the applicant’s personal situation, the long-standing conflict between the applicant and the victims, the fact that the material events had occurred in broad daylight and in a public place so it had not been likely that the victims could have had a justified fear that he would realise his threats, the danger of the offence was minimal and the proceedings should be discontinued.   On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Suwałki Regional Court a civil action for compensation for his arrest on 19 April 1995.     On 23 October 1997 the Suwałki Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action.     The applicant lodged an appeal. He claimed in particular that he should be awarded compensation in a sum of 50 million PLZ.   On 18 December 1997 the Białystok Court of Appeal amended the decision under appeal in that it awarded to the applicant a compensation of 2,000 PLZ. The court observed that on 31 January 1995 the Prosecutor had ordered that a psychiatric opinion be obtained as to the applicant’s mental health. In March 1996 the applicant had failed to comply with the summons for an out-patient examination. By a letter of 4   April   1994 the Prosecutor invited the applicant to report to a hospital for an examination, and on the same day he ordered the police to proceed to the applicant’s arrest in order to ensure that he be examined on that date. The court considered that the Prosecutor had thereby made it impossible for the applicant to comply with its own invitation to come to the examination of the applicant’s own free will, which was clearly not in accordance with the purposes of arrest as set out by the applicable legal provisions. The court further observed that in the light of these provisions arrest had to be resorted to with prudence, as it was a coercive measure leading to a deprivation of liberty. In the present case, the applicant’s arrest could have been lawfully ordered not earlier than on 19 April 1995, i. e, had it become already clear that the applicant had failed to report to the hospital as requested by the Prosecutor’s letter of 4   April 1995. The court referred to Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention and stated that in the light of the foregoing considerations, the applicant’s arrest had been arbitrary and, consequently, it was not compatible with that provision of the Convention.   On the other hand, the court considered that the compensation sought by the applicant was exorbitant and not in proportion to the damage which the applicant had suffered as a result of an unjustifed arrest. The court concluded that in the circumstances of the case the sum of 2,000 zlotys as compensation for a deprivation of liberty of five hours constituted just satisfaction.   The applicant apparently lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment. On 23   January 1998 the prosecutor likewise lodged such an appeal. The cassation proceedings are apparently pending.     8.   Civil proceedings lodged by the Białystok Municipality in which the applicant was a defendant   In September 1992 the Białystok Municipality lodged with the Białystok Regional Court an action against the applicant claiming restitution of a plot of land on which the applicant had begun building of an annex and which was the property of the municipality.     In a judgment of 18 October 1993 the Białystok Regional Court ordered the applicant and his wife to restore to the municipality two plots of land of 36 and 164 square metres, having found that these plots, which were used by the defendants, constituted the property of the municipality.   The applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that he had purchased the litigious land from a third party and, consequently, that these plots should remain in his possession.   On 6 May 1994 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.   On 9 November 1994 the Minister of Justice refused to lodge an extraordinary appeal against this judgment, finding that it was in conformity with the law.             9.   Civil proceedings against the Polish Petroleum and Gas Mining Enterprises   On 5 September 1995 the applicant’s wife lodged with the Białystok District Court a civil action against the Polish Petroleum and Gas Mining Enterprises, claiming that her and the applicant’s property be connected to the gas supply installations from which it had been disconnected following his failure to pay certain sums due. Later on the applicant submitted a power of attorney to the court authorising him to represent his wife in the proceedings.   A hearing was held on 8 December 1995.   On 12 December 1995 the District Court imposed a fine of 600 PLZ on the applicant for having insulted the court in one of his pleadings.   On 13 March 1996 a hearing was held.   At a hearing on 22 May 1996 the Białystok District Court imposed on the applicant a disciplinary penalty of three days of imprisonment, apparently for proffering insults against the court. On 25 May 1996 the court dismissed the claim of the applicant’s wife.   On 20 June 1996 the applicant was arrested in order to serve the penalty imposed by a decision of 22 May 1996. He was released on 23 June 1996.   On 12 November 1996 the Białystok Regional Court allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant’s wife against the judgment of 25 May 1996, quashed this judgment and ordered that the case be reconsidered.   On 4 June 1997 the Białystok District Court dismissed the applicant’s wife’s action. She lodged an appeal. On 24 October 1997 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed it.   On 21 November 1997 the Białystok Regional Court rejected the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as it did not comply with the applicable legal requirements in that it had not been submitted and signed by a lawyer.   On 2 December 1997 the same court exempted the applicant’s wife from the court fees and ordered that she should be assigned a lawyer paid by the legal aid scheme. Apparently later the lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The cassation proceedings are pending.     10.   Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation for wrongful detention     On 28 May 1997 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation against the State for damage caused by allegedly unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital from 21 to 31 January 1991 and on 9 April 1992.     On 18 November 1997 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this judgment. Cassation proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.     COMPLAINTS     In the first letter of 28 October 1994 by which the applicant introduced his application to the European Commission of Human Rights and in the application form submitted on 18   January 1995, the applicant complains, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, that the civil proceedings in which the second-instance judgment was given on 6 May 1994 were unfair in that the courts failed to rule on his request that the municipality award him compensation for his buildings constructed on the plots belonging to it, and that they gave judgments which were manifestly unjust.     In the application form submitted on 30 March 1995 the applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand from 5 to 13 October 1993 amounted to torture and inhuman treatment as he, being a law-abiding citizen, was placed in a prison together with dangerous criminals, and that his detention itself was inhuman, and decided as a part of a harassment campaign against him organised by the State authorities.   The applicant further complains invoking Article 5 of the Convention that he was wrongly deprived of liberty, as there could not have been a reasonable suspicion against him of any criminal offences having been committed. He submits that all his acts should be regarded as justified in the face of the manifest hostility of the State authorities towards him.   The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of the Białystok Court of Appeal of 7 November 1994 was unfair in that he should have been awarded much higher compensation, the sum of 2,000 PLZ not being in any reasonable proportion to his sufferings.     In the application form submitted on 9 March 1998 the applicant reiterates his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention that the repeated arrests and orders to undergo psychiatric examination amounted to inhuman treatment. He emphasises that he was twice arrested and seven times ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination. He submits that the zeal of the State organs which they manifested in persecuting him was not in proportion to the seriousness of the alleged offences.   The applicant further complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that the courts, in two sets of proceedings concerning his compensation claim for allegedly unjustified arrests, in which final judgments were given on 9 June 1995 by the Supreme Court and on 18   November 1997 by the Białystok Court of Appeal, gave judgments in breach of relevant provisions of substantive law, in particular in that they dismissed his claims for compensation.   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the authorities refused to institute criminal proceedings against third parties and that they imposed too lenient sentences on persons convicted following his complaints.   In respect of the proceedings in which the second-instance judgment was given by the Białystok Court of Appeal on 18 December 1997, the applicant complains, in the application form introduced on 13   March   1998, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, that the courts breached his right to a fair trial in that this decision was manifestly unjust and it gave countenance to unlawful and cruel treatment to which he had been subjected by the organs of administration of justice. He refers in particular to many orders of psychiatric examination and to the fact that he had been forced to undergo psychiatric examinations against his will.   In the application form submitted on 1 April 1998, the applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected by the authorities to inhuman treatment in that the court in the civil proceedings against the Polish Petrol and Gas Mining Enterprises imposed a disciplinary penalty on him, that his dignity was breached thereby and that by ordering his deprivation of liberty the court aimed at forcing him to pay a bribe for a fair decision in the case.   The applicant finally complains that the civil proceedings were unfair in that the judgment of the Białystok Regional Court of 24 October 1997 was incompatible with any notion of justice, that his action should not have been dismissed, and that he was unfairly penalised for the defendant’s negligence in the maintenance of the technical appliances used for the provision of gas. He further submits that the proceedings lasted too long as the courts prolonged them on purpose.       THE LAW   1.   Insofar as the applicant’s complaints relate to a period prior to 1 May 1993, the Court recalls that Poland recognised the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights 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". According to Article 6 of Protocol No. 11 this limitation shall remain valid for the jurisdiction of the Court under that Protocol.   It follows that this part of the application is outside the competence ratione temporis of the Court and is therefore inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.   2.   The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his requests to have criminal proceedings instituted against various persons were declined.   The Court recalls that the right of access to a court does not include a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person (Eur. Comm. HR, No. 22998/93, Dec. 14.12.1996, D.R. 87-A, p. 24). It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.   3 .   The applicant further raises various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning many judicial decisions, which were given in cases, to which he was a party.   Article 6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads:   “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”   a)   The Court first notes that the applicant complains about the outcome of the proceedings in which the Białystok Court of Appeal gave its judgment on 6 May 1994.     The Court recalls that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties in the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p.   29, §§ 45 and 46; the Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, § 28, to be published in the Court’s official Reports ).     In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant had ample opportunity to put forward his arguments to the courts and that he availed himself thereof in full, submitting numerous pleadings, advancing detailed factual and legal arguments and actively arguing his case. The Court sees no indication that the applicant was hindered in any manner from arguing his case effectively and that his right to have a fair trial was impaired in any way.   It follows that this part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.   b)   The Court further notes that the applicant alleges unfairness of the civil proceedings in which the Białystok Court of Appeal gave its judgment on 18 December 1997.     The Court notes that both the Prosecutor and the applicant lodged cassation appeals against this judgment with the Supreme Court. The applicant has not shown that the Supreme Court gave a final judgment in this case.     The applicant has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies available to him under Polish law of criminal procedure, and thus, his complaint is premature. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.   c)   The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 relate also to the proceedings in which the Białystok Regional Court, by a judgment of 3 June 1996, discontinued the criminal proceedings against him, finding that the danger of the offence with which the applicant had been charged was so insignificant that pursuing the case against him would not be justified. Further, the applicant alleges unfairness of the proceedings in which the Wysokie Mazowieckie District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against him on 27   December 1995, considering that in view of both objective and subjective circumstances of the case, including the applicant’s general attitude towards the State organs developed as a result of various criminal proceedings against him, the applicant had no case to answer.     However, and leaving aside the question whether in this respect the applicant may be considered a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, the Court is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions, as Article 35 of the Convention provides that the Court "may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".   The Court notes in this respect that the decision of the Białystok Regional Court to declare the case closed was made on 3 June 1996, whereas the complaint concerning this judgment was introduced by the applicant on 13 March 1998. Likewise, the decision of the Wysokie Mazowieckie District Court was given on 27 December 1995, but the complaint relating to this judgment was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights in the application form of 9 March 1998, therefore in both cases more than six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.   It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.   d)   The applicant also complains about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings in which he sought compensation for allegedly wrongful arrest and detention on remand in which the Białystok Court of Appeal gave a second-instance judgment 7 November 1994. The court awarded the applicant compensation, considering that his detention on remand had not been justified. The applicant submitted his complaint concerning this judgment on 30   March 1995. Subsequently, the Minister of Justice lodged an extraordinary appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court. On 28 June 1995 the Supreme Court allowed the extraordinary appeal and quashed the decision of 7 November 1994, considering that the applicant’s arrest and detention could not be regarded as unjustified. The Court observes that the proceedings came to end on 28 June 1995 and the applicant submitted his complaints relating to this judgment on 9 March 1998, which is more than six months from the date on which this judgment was given.   It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.   4.   The applicant further complains invoking Article 5 of the Convention that he was wrongly deprived of liberty in breach of applicable laws, and in particular as there could not have been a reasonable suspicion against him of any criminal offences having been committed.   The Court notes that after 1 May 1993 the applicant was deprived of liberty during his detention on remand from 5 to 13 October 1993. He was released on the latter date, apparently following his appeal to a court against the detention order given by the prosecutor. However, the applicant submitted this complaint in the application form lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 March 1995, which is more than six months from the date on which he was released. Likewise, insofar as it can be understood that the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 of the Convention relates also to the disciplinary penalty of deprivation of liberty imposed on him for insults proffered against the court, which he served from 20   to 23 June 1996, the Court notes that the applicant submitted this complaint on 1   April   1998, which is more than six months from the date of his release.   It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.   5.   The applicant complains, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, that in all the cases to which he was a party, he was treated by the State authorities in a manner contrary to this provision of the Convention.     The Court recalls that ill-treatment must attain a certain level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects, and in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 65-67, §   162). Such treatment causing, if not actual bodily injury, at least intense physical and mental suffering falls into the category of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. It is degrading if it arouses in the person subjected thereto feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing this person (the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment, loc. cit., p. 68, § 174).     In the present case the treatment complained of consisted in the fact that the authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on various charges and that in civil proceedings to which he was a party the courts found against him. Further, in view of the doubts which had arisen in the course of proceedings as to whether the applicant could be held criminally responsible on medical grounds, the prosecutors ordered that medical expert opinions be obtained in this respect. In view of the applicant’s refusal to consent to psychiatric examinations, he was once arrested and once detained on remand. It is not being alleged that the circumstances of his arrests and of his detention on remand were at variance with ordinary and reasonable requirements of such deprivation of liberty, and there is no indication in the documents submitted by the applicant that this was the case.     In conclusion, the Court considers that, even assuming that the applicant exhausted relevant domestic remedies, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that it must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.       For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .           Vincent Berger   Matti Pellonpää Registrar President