|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 15/06/06 Gerichtshof – Mündliche Verhandlung in den Fällen Staroszczyk gegen Polen und Sialowska gegen Polen [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 345
Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER HEARING The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Thursday 15 June 2006 at 9 a.m., on the admissibility and merits in the cases of Staroszczyk v. Poland (application no. 59519/00) and Sialowska v. Poland (no. 8932/05). The applicants The cases concern two applications brought by three Polish nationals, Marianna Staroszczyk and Stanislaw Staroszczyk, who were born in 1932 and 1933 respectively and live in Warsaw and Krystyna Siałkowska, who was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław (Poland). Summary of the facts Staroszczyk In 1982 the applicants were informed that a plot of land they owned, in Pruszków, near Warsaw, was to be expropriated to build a number of new homes. They requested compensation in the form of another plot of land. Their son also filed a request asking that a plot of land be allocated to him. By a letter of 16 May 1986 Pruszków City Council informed the applicants that their request could not be granted. In their letters the local authorities confirmed that it would be possible to allocate a plot of land within the Pruszków community to the applicants’ son after the applicants’ land had been expropriated. Ultimately, the applicants’ land was not expropriated and they sold it to the City Council. In 1990 the applicants’ son was informed by the City Council that the allocation of plots of land within the community had been conducted illegally and that the entire process was to be reviewed. They subsequently brought unsuccessful proceedings to oblige Pruszków City Council to allot a plot of land to their son. Their action was dismissed. They appealed and were granted free legal aid. Warsaw Bar Association was requested by the relevant court to appoint a lawyer for the applicants. The first two ex officio lawyers appointed declined to represent the applicants. The third lawyer appointed represented them before the appellate court, which dismissed their appeal. The applicants were subsequently unable to contact the lawyer to file a cassation appeal, which had to be drafted and signed by a lawyer. They submitted that they went to their ex officio attorney’s law offices on numerous occasions, tried to telephone him and wrote both to him and the bar association. The applicants submit that they finally managed to meet their lawyer on 27 January 2000, when they were informed that there were no grounds for filing a cassation appeal in their case. They also claim that their lawyer asked them to sign declarations that they had not wished to pursue their case before the Supreme Court. ./.. Sialowska Following her husband’s death in December 2002 the applicant brought proceedings for the grant of a widow’s pension. However, her claim was dismissed by the courts, which upheld the Pension Fund’s findings, namely that, though still married to her husband, the applicant had been separated from him since 1994 when he had left her to set up home with another woman, she had not received any maintenance payments from her husband, had not nursed him during his illness and had only learned of his ill health in March 2002. The courts rejected the only evidence that the marriage had continued until the death of the applicant's husband and concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the statutory conditions that would have entitled her to a pension. A lawyer was assigned to assist the applicant with an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, he refused to lodge an appeal after explaining to her in a legal opinion why he considered that an appeal would be inadmissible. The applicant maintains that the lawyer only informed her of his decision not to lodge an appeal at a meeting in his office after the statutory time-limit for lodging an appeal had expired. Complaints Staroszczyk The applicants complain that they were denied effective access to a court, as the lawyer appointed under the applicable legal aid scheme failed to undertake the necessary steps to lodge a cassation appeal. They also maintain that the domestic courts violated the principle of equality of arms as their submissions were not properly recorded and the State Treasury was clearly favoured. They further allege that they were misled into selling their property. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. Sialowska Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complains of the domestic courts’ factual findings and assessment of the oral evidence. She also contests the outcome of the proceedings. She further alleges that her lawyer’s refusal to lodge the appeal had deprived her of access to the Supreme Court. Procedure The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 November 1999 in the case of Staroszczyk and on 11 March 2005 in the case of Sialowska. Composition of the Court The cases will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows: Christos Rozakis (Greek), President, Representatives of the parties Government: Jakub Wolasiewicz, Agent,
Applicants In the case of Staroszczyk: Wojciech Hermelinski, Counsel;
Marianna Staroszczyk and Stanislaw Staroszczyk, as well as Krystyna Siałkowska will also attend the hearing. *** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Decisions on admissibility, followed if appropriate by judgments, will be delivered at a later date. Press Contacts
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
