PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 43425/98) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Edward Skałka (“the applicant”), on 17 October 1997.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr Adam Bezucha, a lawyer practising in Kłodzko. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings were conducted by courts which lacked impartiality and alleged that his criminal conviction was in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol no. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 12 June 2001 the Court declared the complaint under Article 6 § 1 inadmissible.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Third Section.

By a decision of 3 October 2002, the Court declared the remainder of the application admissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1941. He is currently serving a prison sentence.

On 16 December 1993 the Nowy Targ District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and sentenced him to imprisonment. While in prison, on unspecified dates the applicant wrote a letter to the Penitentiary Division of the Katowice Regional Court and he received a reply. Dissatisfied with that reply, on 15 November 1994 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Katowice Regional Court, complaining about the judge who had replied to his letter. The relevant passages of the applicant's letter read: “(...) It cannot be excluded that further acts of that kind on the part of the Penitentiary Division of the Regional Court would make me complain to the judicial supervision about the irresponsible clowns placed in that Division. I will start by saying that any little cretin, whether he wears a gown or not, should vent his need to intimidate others by making allusions to legal responsibility [for their acts] on his mistress, if he has one, or on his dog, but not on me. I am not going to be afraid of any such clown who wants to intimidate me, but the truth is that my request of 18 August 1994 was addressed to the court, not to some fool. I expect that the President of the Katowice Regional Court will somehow convey my request to that bully and that he will, at the same time, read his reply to me (...) Not only does [the judge] write rubbish about my alleged request for a pardon, which my request was absolutely not, but he also intimidates me. If he is such a brilliant lawyer that he is able to reply to questions that were not asked – and his legal skills can be seen if the content of my letter is compared with his reply – he should find a relevant legal provision to use against me. It would not change the fact that such a limited individual, such a cretin should not take the post of a reliable lawyer who would know how to reply to a letter. A cretin he will remain and I see no reason to be afraid of any legal consequences. “You know, you understand, shut up” – that is all the education he has, as a fool does not need any better.”

Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 31 January 1994 the prosecuting authorities lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Sosnowiec District Court. He was charged with proffering insults against a State authority at its headquarters or in public, an offence punishable under Article 237 of the Criminal Code 1969, committed by sending a letter to the President of the Katowice Regional Court. In this letter the applicant had insulted an unidentified judge of that court's Penitentiary Division and all judges of that court. The applicant had been questioned in connection with the offence. He had stated that he had not meant the court as a whole, but only one judge, and this in his personal, not professional, capacity. He maintained that the letter could only be regarded as an insult against a private person, but not a State institution.

On 6 September 1995 the Sosnowiec District Court convicted the applicant of insulting a State authority and sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment. The court found that on 15 November 1994 the applicant had sent a letter to the President of the Regional Court in which he referred to all judges of the Regional Court's Penitentiary Division in an insulting and abusive manner as “irresponsible clowns”. Moreover, further on in the same letter, he referred in a particularly insulting manner (“w sposób szczególnie obraźliwy”) to an unidentified judge of the same Division, to whom he had allegedly written certain letters, which remained unanswered.

The court had regard to the results of the applicant's examination by psychiatrists who found that he could be held criminally responsible. The court further took into consideration the questioning of the applicant during the investigations. He had denied that he had committed a criminal offence. He had stated that the charge against him did not correspond to the facts of the case as in his letter he referred to a particular person, not to the court as a whole, and that the phrases construed as insults concerned the judge in his personal capacity only. When later heard by the court, the applicant had stated that he had written this letter with a specific person in mind, namely a judge who had previously examined his various complaints. He maintained that he had not named that judge, because the letter from the Penitentiary Division in reply to his complaints, which had provoked him to write his impugned reply, had not been signed. The applicant had also stated that he was of the view that the opinions formulated in his letter were, in the circumstances of the case, correct.

The court considered that it was beyond any doubt that it was the applicant who had written the impugned letter. The analysis of its content and form led to the conclusion that the applicant had acted with the firm intention of insulting the Regional Court as a judicial authority. He had first addressed himself to the judges of that court as a group, and then focused on one unidentified judge. Accordingly, it had to be understood that the applicant had insulted the court as the State authority, and the unidentified judge could be regarded as a symbol of that court. The court further observed that the applicant, as a citizen, had a constitutional right to criticise the State authorities. However, the impugned letter had largely exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism and was directly aimed at lowering the court in the public esteem. The court further observed that the sentence was commensurate with the applicant's degree of guilt and with the seriousness of the offence. The assessment of the latter had been made having regard to the nature and importance of the interests protected by the criminal law provision applied in the case, i.e. by Article 237 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant and his officially assigned lawyer lodged appeals against this judgment.

On 19 June 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal, following a request from all of the judges of the Katowice Regional Court to be allowed to step down, considered that, in view of fact that the offence had been directed against the judges of that court, it was in the interest of the good administration of justice and the impartiality of the court that the appeal be transferred to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court.

On 10 September 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court upheld the contested judgment, having examined both the appeal lodged by the applicant himself and that of his lawyer. The court first noted that the first-instance court had accurately established the facts of the case. The court went on to state that it shared the conclusions of the first-instance court, namely that the content and form of the letter called for the conclusion that the applicant had acted with the firm intention of insulting the Regional Court as a State authority. The legal assessment of the facts of the case was correct, and the sentence imposed corresponded to the degree of the applicant's guilt. The applicant had a long criminal record, even though he had been assessed positively by the penitentiary services, and could be held criminally responsible. The applicant's lawyer had argued that the applicant had intended to insult a specific person, not an institution. However, in the light of the court's other findings, this analysis was rejected.

The applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

On 2 June 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested judgment. The court referred to the grounds of appeal in which it had been argued that the conviction had been in flagrant breach of Article 237 of the Criminal Code in that the applicant's acts, in the light of his submissions as to his motives, did not amount to a punishable criminal offence.

The Supreme Court first noted that the grounds of the applicant's cassation appeal had been laconic and limited in their reasoning. Moreover, it clearly transpired therefrom that in fact the applicant's lawyer contested the assessment of evidence and the factual findings made by the lower courts, whereas the purpose of the cassation appeal was only to bring procedural complaints to the attention of the Supreme Court. This in itself constituted a sufficient basis for dismissing the appeal as not being in compliance with the requirements laid down by the applicable procedural provisions.

However, the court emphasised, it was worth noting that the Regional Court in its judgment had examined all complaints submitted in the appeal against the first-instance judgment, including those concerning the assessment of evidence and the factual findings of the first-instance court. No new arguments had been submitted to the Supreme Court to show that there had been any procedural shortcomings in the proceedings. Certainly the argument that the applicant's acts could not be regarded as a criminal offence could not be regarded as such a procedural complaint.

The Supreme Court went on to state that the applicant's abusive letter, referred to and quoted by the Regional Court, had clearly exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism. Even if it were acknowledged that in the second part of the letter the applicant had focused on one judge, it had to be recognised that at the beginning he had attacked all the judges of the Regional Court. The appellate court correctly had regard thereto. It had also indicated why it considered that the applicant's attitude could be qualified as an offence under Article 237 of the Criminal Code 1969. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the cassation appeal as unfounded.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e1
001-61105_a3_em1
CODE
DIRECT
43425/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61105_a3_e2
001-61105_a3_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e3
001-61105_a3_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Polish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e4
001-61105_a3_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Edward Skałka
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e5
001-61105_a3_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e6
001-61105_a3_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Adam Bezucha
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61105_a3_e7
001-61105_a3_em7
LOC
QUASI
Kłodzko
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e8
001-61105_a3_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e9
001-61105_a3_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e10
001-61105_a3_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e11
001-61105_a3_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
3 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e12
001-61105_a3_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1941
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e13
001-61105_a3_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
16 December 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e14
001-61105_a3_em14
ORG
QUASI
Nowy Targ District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e15
001-61105_a3_em15
ORG
QUASI
Penitentiary Division of the Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e16
001-61105_a3_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em17
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e18
001-61105_a3_em18
ORG
QUASI
001-61105_a3_em31
Penitentiary Division of the Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e19
001-61105_a3_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
18 August 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em20
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e20
001-61105_a3_em21
ORG
QUASI
Sosnowiec District Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e21
001-61105_a3_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
31 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e22
001-61105_a3_em23
ORG
QUASI
Sosnowiec District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em24
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e23
001-61105_a3_em25
MISC
QUASI
Penitentiary Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e24
001-61105_a3_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
6 September 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e22
001-61105_a3_em27
ORG
QUASI
Sosnowiec District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e25
001-61105_a3_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
eight months'
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e16
001-61105_a3_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em30
ORG
QUASI
001-61105_a3_em17
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e18
001-61105_a3_em31
ORG
QUASI
Regional Court's Penitentiary Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e26
001-61105_a3_em32
MISC
QUASI
w sposób szczególnie obraźliwy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e23
001-61105_a3_em33
MISC
QUASI
Penitentiary Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em34
ORG
QUASI
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e27
001-61105_a3_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
State authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e28
001-61105_a3_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
19 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e29
001-61105_a3_em37
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em38
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61105_a3_e30
001-61105_a3_em39
MISC
QUASI
Bielsko-Biała Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e31
001-61105_a3_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
10 September 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e30
001-61105_a3_em41
MISC
QUASI
Bielsko-Biała Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em42
ORG
QUASI
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e33
001-61105_a3_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
2 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em48
ORG
QUASI
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em51
ORG
QUASI
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e17
001-61105_a3_em52
ORG
QUASI
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61105_a3_e32
001-61105_a3_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
Edward Skałka
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Edward Skałka