RSS Paraprawo

Homo homini lupus est

Archiwum

Polecane strony


Art. 32 Konstytucji RP. Article 32


1. Wszyscy są wobec prawa równi. Wszyscy mają prawo do równego traktowania przez władze publiczne.
All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.

2. Nikt nie może być dyskryminowany w życiu politycznym, społecznym lub gospodarczym z jakiejkolwiek przyczyny.
No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever.

Art. 45 Konstytucji RP. Article 45


1. Każdy ma prawo do sprawiedliwego i jawnego rozpatrzenia sprawy bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki przez właściwy, niezależny, bezstronny i niezawisły sąd.
Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case, without undue delay, before a competent, impartial and independent court.

Art. 54 Konstytucji RP. Article 54


1. Każdemu zapewnia się wolność wyrażania swoich poglądów oraz pozyskiwania i rozpowszechniania informacji.
The freedom to express opinions, to acquire and to disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone.

Art. 77 Konstytucji RP. Article 77


1. Każdy ma prawo do wynagrodzenia szkody, jaka została mu wyrządzona przez niezgodne z prawem działanie organu władzy publicznej.
Everyone shall have the right to compensation for any harm done to him by any action of an organ of public authority contrary to law.

2. Ustawa nie może nikomu zamykać drogi sądowej dochodzenia naruszonych wolności lub praw.
Statutes shall not bar the recourse by any person to the courts in pursuit of claims alleging infringement of freedoms or rights.

Is the European Court of Human Rights…


…the place where we can expect justice? Or do we have to wait for the justice until the Judgment Day? Complaint to the ECHR in Strasbourg adopted in Poland colloquial term “go with it to Strasbourg”. We can go… but what for? Here are the reasons for the doubts and also latest news on that matter!

Issue 1

When I addressed first of my complaints to the ECHR, it seemed to me that I was doing memorable thing for the rule of law in Poland, and that the fair Tribunal would fix all wrongs and injustice that so-called “judicature” caused (not only in my opinion). Well – nothing could be further from the truth – as you can learn below. According to the statistics, the Court investigated in that time circa 7 complaints per 1000 national judgments. Such a small percentage was a result of “not using all the national procedures” and failure to meet required deadlines to file a complaint. The main problem was to determine which judgment on the national level was this “final” one, required to pass before filing a complaint to the Tribunal. Hence the long time of proceeding with complaints. My own complaint, a main cause of this article, was examined for a period of 10 years. Still, on 15.03.2012, it was rejected as “not meeting the conditions”. Interesting fact is that on 22.11.2005, the Tribunal, operating as full court, accepted my complaint and referred it to adjudication procedures. The procedures were complete, including participation of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs representatives, and mandatory representation of attorney.

Consequently, my case was treated according to rules prevailing in polish courts – that is the only truth was the truth presented by government authorities.

Now, if you are fragile – beware, because nothing hurts more than the truth… I’m just kidding. In the letter from polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ECHR (dated 19.04.2006) the amount of truth is next to nothing, so you have nothing to worry about. Alas, the consequences of the mentioned document were tremendous. Our Ministry, via their representative, passed judgments in cases, that are still in progress. In the main case, considering rents, our Ministry was lying on a great scale – check the judgment of the Regional Court in Szczecin I C 48/06 dated 28.02.2011.

Unfortunately, such information was presented in the Tribunal as official position of the Government of The Republic of Poland. How could I face up to the truth of our officials? In the letter our Ministry’s representative denigrated me, referred to non-existent amount of debts, did not support his statements with any documents and – what is most important – the complaint before ECHR did not consider those matters. It considered the unlawful  seizure of my property, which was bought from the Agency of Agricultural Property – under purchase agreement (instalments) and I have complied my dues in a timely manner.

When my property was seized I had 60% of my debt paid off. It is worth emphasizing that ECHR examined the way I was deprived of my property, and unequivocally stated that the law was broken. It has been confirmed that the Agency took my property without any legal title, enforcement, regulatory or other disposition, without the participation of the bailiff and both me and my attorney were not allowed during estimation procedures. I was not allowed to enter my property during procedures under the threat of arrest.

The reaction of the ECHR to my lawyer’s letter dated 31.07.2006 was negligible and things went on as if it was a complaint concerning the ongoing process of compensation about termination of lease contracts and not a robbery of my property committed by the Agency. A decision was issued by ECHR, on 07.04.2009, based on mentioned earlier proceedings. It assumed that in case of loosing my damages during first instance proceedings concerning ineffective termination of my lease agreements, I should be able to re-file a complaint. The question is – a complaint on what? The Tribunal was skilfully “led up the garden path” by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs representative, finally it confused the issue concerning complaint from 19.03.2003 with the ongoing investigation, in respect of which no complaints were filed (it couldn’t be done until the proceedings have not been concluded by a final judgment.

Subsequent correspondence – my letters to ECHR of 20.07.2009, 06.01.2010, 31.08.2010, 15.03.2012 (attached below this article) – prove that there is something not right in the Tribunal, and that there were successful attempts to cover-up matters on the initial level.

Finally, Mr Ryngielewicz (Head of Division – not a Tribunal) in his letter dated 22.03.2012 (below the text) just told me that my complaint 4598/10 was rejected by one-person decision. That decision was based only on STATEMENT (whose?) and there would not be any reasons for a judgment! It means no more nor less that the judges of the Tribunal – in my opinion – did not even see the court records of my case! EPILOGUE My next letter on case 10453/03 dated 13.04.2012 (below the text) remained unanswered – thus ultimately determining the fate of my complaint for damages on 19.03.2003 as unknown…

Issue 2

One of my following complaints to the ECHR was made on 24.02.2007, at a time when there was still smouldering spark of hope In me, concerning justice that Tribunal would bestow upon the oppressed. My complaint concerned the refusal to release me from the court costs in the case against energy company, which charged me with excessive interest for very old obligation, which was taken over by me as a debt of the Agency. I was complying quite well until I lost my assets and households – as I described above.

The important issue in this case is, however, a final judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw and it’s judge Ryszard Sarnowicz, who (on 07.06.2006) legitimated finally refusal to release me from the costs and did not even trouble himself with any reasons for the judgment. It should be also mentioned that these costs amounted to the equivalent of my ear and a half disability pension. My complaint was accepted by the Court for consideration, again there was duty imposed on me to have my official attorney. I appointed attorney from the law company in Warsaw and together we went to “conquer” Strasbourg. This time – with success.

Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs broke and we settled on the agreement –  they had to pay me passable compensation. The agreement was acknowledged and legitimized by the Court in its judgment dated 24.01.2011 issuing a case of a complaint number 11619/07 The matter of interest, unwanted by the Civil Division of the District Court in Warsaw, was taken for consideration by the Commercial Court in Warsaw. It’s judgment was satisfactory to both parties. We might forget about that cases, unfortunately there was another factor. Proceedings concerning exemption from execution of my dwelling house, which was addressed for the District Court in Warsaw. The Court asked for 5 000 Zł, even though my financial situation in recent times did not change for the better. In fact it deteriorated significantly as a result of a traffic accident. http://paraprawo.pl/moja-prawa-noga/.

Again, final legitimization of the judgment was passed by judge Ryszard Sarnowicz. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, dated 17.06.2009 had reasons that were not reasonable at all. It was hard to accept the grounds of serious allegations that I respect the law and the obligations arising from the provisions of article 939 and 940 of polish Code of Civil Procedure. Two years after the accident still I wasn’t able to carry on any activities on my own. My request for interpretation of that judgment was again denied and concluded by Ryszard Sarnowicz with his order dated 02.10.2009, of course without any reasons for a judgment at all!

Thus, I had written a complaint again. It was dated 10.09.2009. I admit that I secretly hoped that the ECHR can combine these two of my complaints into one, both referring to the same issues, the same Court of Appeal and the same judge Ryszard Sarnowicz.

Unfortunately things went their separate ways, rather in opposite directions. The new complaint, nr 53810/09, disappeared completely from the horizon and nothing had happened until the day when I received from mr Ryngielewicz a letter dated 12.07.2012 (below the text), informing me that the application was rejected – again single-handedly, again by judge David Thor Björgvinsson, and again on the basis of the report of unknown origins. Again I was instructed not to write any letters to the Court, because I would not receive any reply anyway. And I would better forget about any reasons for a judgment concerning that decision.

After that I tried to search the library of the ECHR but I could not find any judgments concerning my case.

And now there is the time for a little self-serving. 

Current President of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw – judge Ryszard Sarnowicz has been a former judge of the Family Court in Radom. This person, after a few years of proceedings concerning establishing contact with my teenage daughter, deprived me of this right for a six years. There was something more important of the right of a father.

A local cabal group’s right, where the mother of my daughter and her family belonged.

Finally, all of them lost with the “rules of life” because since the time of maturity of my daughter our contacts are very frequent, and they are abundant in good emotions, embellished with common events. It was deeply offending for ambitious and quickly promoting judge, and in effect could not be without negative consequences for me. It is now less surprising that for many years any of my cases was not positively reviewed by the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, also when it came to the judgment of the Regional Court of Warsaw concerning my 30 million, which was mine, but also in fact my daughters…

News 

And for those, still not crediting their own eyes, reading this column, I recommend some fresh meat delivered to me by Polish Post – two orders of the court – 624 29.04.2013 and 736 29.04.2013 dismissing my complaints against the refusal of exemption of judges described in Issue 10 and Issue 9.

The decisions were issued by Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, which is led, as we know, by my huge fan – Judge Ryszard Sarnowicz. If you pay attention to the brevity of the substantiation of these decisions, and the lack of logical and physical connection with the allegations underlying complaints 736 21.01.2013 and 624 28.01.2013 maybe you will understand that described phenomenon of judge’s ‘independence from law’ – is a fact.

 

Complaint to ECHR in Strasbourg 19.03.2003

Complaint to ECHR in Strasbourg 26.09.2003

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw 27.10.2005

Judgment of ECHR 22.11.2005

The letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ECHR 19.04.2006

My pleading 31.07.2006

The letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ECHR 15.09.2006

Complaint to ECHR 24.02.2007

Judgment of ECHR 07.04.2009

The letter from ECHR 11.06.2009

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw 17.06.2009

My complaint to ECHR 10.09.2009

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw 02.10.2009

Letter from ECHR 15.10.2009

My letter to ECHR 07.11.2009

My letter to ECHR 26.11.2009 Complaint to ECHR in Strasbourg 22.03.2010

The letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ECHR 17.08.2010

Judgment of ECHR 24.01.2011

Information concerning judgment of ECHR 22.03.2012

Information concerning judgment of ECHR 12.07.2012

Polecam także uwadze felietony


1 komentarz »

  1. Autor: Roman

    22 September 2014 @ 12:49

    Ja zaczynam mieć wrażenie, że wszystko to co jest europejskie, jest tym, od czego niczego nie powinniśmy oczekiwać 😉

Kanał RSS z komentarzami do tego wpisu · Adres TrackBack

Zostaw komentarz

CommentLuv badge
 

Najnowsze komentarze

Kategorie dokumentów

Galerie foto

Mój wiek XX

Licznik odwiedzin

253599
Total Hits : 628340
Who's Online : 1
plugins by Bali Web Design

Ślubowanie sędziów:

The oath taken by polish judges:
As the common court judge I do solemnly swear to serve faithfully the Republic of Poland, uphold the law, conscientiously perform the duties of a judge, administer justice according to the law, impartially and according to my conscience, I swear to keep the State and official secrets and to behave according to the principles of dignity and integrity”.

The person making the oath may add at the end:

„So help me God.”



"Ślubuję uroczyście jako sędzia sądu powszechnego służyć wiernie Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, stać na straży prawa, obowiązki sędziego wypełniać sumiennie, sprawiedliwość wymierzać zgodnie z przepisami prawa, bezstronnie według mego sumienia, dochować tajemnicy państwowej i służbowej, a w postępowaniu kierować się zasadami godności i uczciwości."

Składający ślubowanie może dodać na końcu zwrot:

"Tak mi dopomóż Bóg."

Google