14 October 2008
FOURTH SECTION
Application no.
24254/05
by Tomasz KWIATKOWSKI
against Poland
lodged on 24
June 2005
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tomasz Kwiatkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Konstancin-Jeziorna.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 August 1997 the Law of 11 April 1997 on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”) entered into force.
On an unspecified date the applicant, who was an advocate, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services.
On an unspecified date in 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had co-operated with the secret services.
On 27 June 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration. The operative part of the judgment was served on the applicant. However, the reasoning was considered “secret” and, in accordance with Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could only be consulted in the secret registry of that court.
The applicant lodged an appeal in which he maintained, in particular, that his rights had been breached because he could not freely consult the reasoning of the judgment.
On 16 May 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment.
The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment.
On 28 August 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant was removed from the Bar Association with the result that he is unable to practise as an advocate for a period of ten years in application of the 1997 Lustration Act.
The judgment was notified to the applicant’s representative on 17 January 2005.
B. Relevant domestic law
A detailed rendition of the provisions of the relevant domestic law is set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, ECHR 2007 ...
COMPLAINTS
The applicant also complains under Articles 1 and 6 of the Convention about the principles of lustration, claiming that the 1997 Lustration Act was not compatible with a democratic State based on the rule of law and breached Resolution 1096 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He complains that the lustration law did not cover all public servants in a uniform manner and that it applied to events that took place between 1944 and 1990.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES