AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                    Application No. 23691/94
                    by W. K.
                    against Poland

     The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:

          Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
          MM.  J.-C. GEUS
               G. JÖRUNDSSON
               A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
               J.-C. SOYER
               H. DANELIUS
               F. MARTINEZ
               M.A. NOWICKI
               I. CABRAL BARRETO
               J. MUCHA
               D. SVÁBY
               P. LORENZEN
               E. BIELIUNAS
               E.A. ALKEMA
               A. ARABADJIEV

          Ms.  M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 13 September 1993
by W. K. against Poland and registered on 16 March 1994 under file
No. 23691/94;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1956, is an economist
residing in Brwinów, Poland.

     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows:

Particular circumstances of the case


1.   Divorce proceedings

     On 18 January 1989 the applicant lodged a petition for divorce
with the Warsaw District Court (S*d Rejonowy).

     On 3 December 1990 the Warsaw District Court gave a judgment
dissolving the applicant's marriage.  The right to custody  of the
parties' daughter was awarded to his wife whereas the applicant was
granted access to the child.  The court ordered the applicant to pay
child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 300,000 per month.

     On 12 April 1991 the Warsaw Provincial Court (S*d Wojewódzki),
upon the applicant's appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first
instance.


2.   Proceedings concerning defamation

     As from the beginning of 1991 the applicant, in his numerous
claims, petitions and appeals, made statements which related personally
to several judges of the Warsaw courts.  He described them as mentally
and emotionally unfit to dispense justice; he also alleged that they
had forged evidence.

     On 5 February 1992 the Warsaw District Court convicted the
applicant of defamation of the judges concerned.  The applicant
appealed against the above judgment.

     Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy) ordered that the
appellate proceedings should be conducted before the Skierniewice
Provincial Court, since the defamation concerned certain judges of the
Warsaw Provincial Court.

     In the meantime the applicant requested the Skierniewice
Provincial Court to take evidence confirming that he had been prompted
to issue the statements in question in view of the judges' prejudiced
attitude to his cases.

     On 29 June 1993 the Skierniewice Provincial Court refused to take
the evidence requested and upheld the judgment of the court of first
instance.

3.   Proceedings relating to child maintenance

     On 19 June 1991 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant
to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 400,000 per month.
On 2 October 1991 the court ordered the applicant to pay child
maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 600,000 per month.

     On 22 February 1992 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the
applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of 2 October 1991 and
dismissed the claim.

     On 9 June 1993 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant
to pay child maintenance in the amount of old PLZ 600,000 per month.

     On 1 February 1994, the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon both
parties' appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.

     On 24 July 1996 the applicant's ex-wife requested the Warsaw
District Court to order him to pay child maintenance in the amount of
new PLZ 250 per month.

     On 19 August and 19 December 1996 a hearing  before the Warsaw
District Court took place.  The proceedings are currently pending.


4.   Proceedings concerning insult

     On 2 October 1991 the applicant and two other members of the
Defence of Fathers' Rights Association put a board at the entrance to
the Warsaw courts. At the top of the board there was a headline:
"Criminals of Justice", followed by a list of the names of eight judges
of the Warsaw courts and three court experts, with the following
comments: "scoundrels", "shufflers", "provocateurs".

     On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with publicly
insulting the persons concerned.

     On 28 February 1992 the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator
Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court.

     Subsequently, the case-file was transferred to the jurisdiction
of the Zyrardów District Court since the insult concerned judges of the
Warsaw courts.

     On 13 November 1992 the Zyrardów District Court found the
applicant and his two co-defendants guilty although it decided to
discontinue criminal proceedings against them.

     On 26 November 1992 the applicant appealed against the above
decision to the Skierniewice Provincial Court.

     In the meantime, on an unspecified date, apparently after 1 May
1993, he requested the appellate court to stay proceedings since he had
been detained on remand on 27 April 1993 in the assault case.


5.   Proceedings relating to permission to obtain a passport for the
     child

     Meanwhile, on 8 August 1991 the applicant's ex-wife requested the
Warsaw District Court to grant her permission to obtain a passport for
their daughter in view of the fact that the applicant had failed to
give his consent to the issue of a passport for the child.

     On 27 April 1993 the Warsaw District Court granted the
permission.  When the presiding judge was pronouncing the decision, the
applicant assaulted her.  He was arrested in the court.

     The applicant appealed against the decision of 27 April 1993.

     On 12 October 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint challenging
the impartiality of all judges sitting in the Warsaw Provincial Court.
He requested in particular that the present case be transferred to
another province.

     In the meantime, a group of ten judges of the Warsaw courts
requested the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny) to exempt them
from dealing with the applicant's cases.  They submitted that the
applicant had insulted them in the past and that, in view of his
violent behaviour on 27 April 1993, they were not able to deal with his
cases.

     On 21 November 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of
all judges sitting in the Warsaw Court of Appeal.  In the meantime
these judges submitted declarations to the effect that there was no
personal or any other relation between them and the applicant or his
ex-wife which could prejudice them in the course of dealing with these
parties' cases.

     On 31 January 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the
applicant's challenge of 21 November 1994.

     On 1 June 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ruled on the
applicant's complaint of 12 October 1994.  It held that the challenge
to the impartiality of the judges of the Warsaw Provincial Court was
ill-founded in view of the lack of any objective appearance of bias or
prejudice.  The court also referred to the judges' request and held
that the interests of justice did not require them to be exempted from
dealing with the applicant's cases in the future.

     On 23 November 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the
applicant's appeal, upheld the decision of the Warsaw District Court
of 27 April 1993.


6.   Proceedings relating to the claim against the K company

     On 27 February 1992 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation
with the Warsaw District Court requesting a payment of PLZ 100,000 from
the K company.

     Meanwhile, on an unspecified date, the applicant's case was
transferred to the Warsaw Provincial Court because that court had
jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter.

     On 16 July 1993 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the claim
since the applicant had not complied with formal requirements.

     On 3 September 1993 the applicant appealed against the above
decision.

     On 12 October 1993 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the
applicant's appeal as being lodged out of time.

     On 2 November 1993 the applicant appealed against the above
decision. On the same day he requested the court to grant him
retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 16
July 1993.  On 22 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to
grant him legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees.

     On 26 January 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the
applicant partial exemption from court fees in respect of his appeal
against the decision of 12 October 1993.

     On 4 March 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the
applicant's appeal against the decision of 12 October 1993 and held
that the issue of a possible grant of retrospective leave to appeal out
of time had to be examined separately by the Warsaw Provincial Court
following a hearing.

     On 14 June 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court rejected the
applicant's request to grant him retrospective leave to appeal out of
time against the decision of 16 July 1993.

     On 24 October 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the
applicant's appeal, quashed the above decision and referred the case
back to the court of first instance to establish all circumstances
concerning the reasons for which the applicant had not complied with
the time-limit.

     On 31 May 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the applicant
retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 16 July 1993 and
ordered his appeal of 3 September 1993 to be referred to the Warsaw
Court of Appeal.

     On 29 November 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the
applicant's appeal against the rejection of his claim as being
manifestly ill-founded.


7.   Proceedings relating to the claim against the Minister of the
     Interior

     In 1992, on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim
against the Minister of the Interior with the Warsaw Provincial Court.
He claimed PLZ 20,000 in compensation for the fact that in 1986 certain
police officers had failed properly to conduct investigations against
persons who had assaulted him.

     On 21 October 1992 the court, upon the applicant's request,
granted him legal assistance and exemption from court fees.

     On 18 May 1993 the applicant increased the amount of the
compensation claimed to PLZ 50,000.

     Further statements were filed by the parties on 24 May 1993 and
on 18 August 1993.

    On 28 October 1993 a hearing took place.  The applicant again
increased the amount of the compensation claimed, to PLZ 95,000, and
requested the court to take further evidence.  On 28 December 1993 the
court held the next hearing.

     On 2 February 1994 the applicant submitted a further statement.
He requested the court to take further evidence from witnesses,
documents and medical experts' reports.

     On 30 March 1994 the court held a hearing.  It took evidence from
the applicant and dismissed his requests for further evidence to be
taken.  On the same day the court gave judgment and dismissed the
claim.

     On 13 September 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the
applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the court of first instance
and referred the case back to that court in order for further evidence
to be taken.

     On 28 December 1994 the applicant submitted a statement and
requested that evidence be taken from three witnesses and two medical
experts.

     On 1 February 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence
from a witness.

     On 28 June and 8 September 1995 medical experts submitted
reports.

     On 10 October and 14 November 1995 the applicant requested the
court to take further evidence from an orthopaedist and documentary
evidence.

     On 21 November 1995 the applicant's lawyer submitted a statement
and requested the court to take further evidence from witnesses.

     On 15 December 1995 the court took evidence from a cardiologist
and, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the hearing.

     On 19 December 1995 the applicant submitted a statement,
contesting the report prepared by a cardiologist.

     On 15 May 1996 the court held a hearing and took evidence from
an orthopaedist and the applicant.  The court dismissed the applicant's
request for it to take further evidence.

     On 23 May 1996 the Warsaw Provincial Court gave judgment
dismissing the applicant's claim and revoking the exemption from court
fees granted on 2 February 1992.

     On 30 November 1996 the applicant filed an appeal against the
above judgment.  The proceedings are pending.

8.   Proceedings relating to the claim against the Minister of Justice

     In 1992, on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim for
compensation against the Minister of Justice with the Warsaw Provincial
Court.  He claimed compensation of PLZ 60,000 on the basis that the
court which had dealt with his cases had lacked impartiality and the
judges had abused their power.

     On 10 June 1993 the applicant increased the amount of the
compensation sought.

     On 5 November 1993 he requested the Warsaw Provincial Court to
grant him legal assistance and a general exemption from court fees.

     On 25 February 1994 the applicant again increased the amount of
the compensation claimed to PLZ 620,000.

     On 20 April 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court granted the
applicant exemption from court fees exceeding the amount of PLZ 150.

     On 12 August 1994 the applicant again requested the Warsaw
Provincial Court to be exempted from court fees.  On 23 November 1994
he again requested legal assistance.

     On 30 December 1994 the applicant filed a further statement and
again increased the amount of the compensation claimed.  He also
requested a general exemption from court fees.

     On 27 February 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court dismissed the
applicant's request and held that the applicant had already been
exempted from court fees exceeding the amount of PLZ 150.

     On 24 May 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, upon the applicant's
appeal, quashed the above decision and found that the requests for
legal assistance and a further exemption from court fees should be
reconsidered.

     On 25 July 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court refused to grant the
applicant legal assistance.  On 13 September 1995 the same court
refused to grant him a further exemption from court fees.

     On 29 September 1995 the court, upon the applicant's request,
adjourned the hearing.  On the same day the applicant appealed against
the refusal to grant him legal assistance.

     On 20 December 1995 the court, upon both parties' request,
adjourned a hearing.

     On 5 January 1996 the applicant again increased the amount of
compensation claimed.  He again requested the court to grant him a
general exemption from court fees.

     On 21 February 1996 the court adjourned the hearing since the
applicant, having been duly summoned, had failed to appear.

     On 22 April 1996 the court, following a hearing, rejected the
applicant's appeal against the refusal to grant him legal assistance
since the appeal had been lodged out of time.

     On 10 June 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision
rejecting his appeal as being lodged out of time.  The proceedings are
pending.


9.   Proceedings relating to custody

     On 30 March 1993 the applicant lodged a petition with the Warsaw
District Court requesting that the divorce judgment of 3 December 1990
be altered with respect to the custody arrangements, i.e. that sole
custody be granted to him.

     On 26 April 1993 the applicant's ex-wife submitted her pleadings,
opposing the petition.

     On 27 April 1993 the applicant was arrested in the course of the
criminal proceedings instituted against him.  As a result, the
proceedings were suspended until 22 November 1993.

     In the meantime the applicant requested the court to call nine
witnesses and his ex-wife requested it to call two witnesses.  On
24 February 1994 the applicant requested the court to call one more
witness.

     On 17 March 1994 a hearing took place.  The court took evidence
from six witnesses and, on the parties' request, adjourned the hearing
in order to call seven additional witnesses proposed by them.

     On 12 April 1994 the next hearing took place.  The court heard
only four witnesses since the others were not present.  The hearing was
adjourned in order to call the absent witnesses.

     In the meantime the applicant submitted a formal request for
evidence to be taken by the Gdansk District Court from a witness
residing in Gdansk.

     On 24 June 1994 the Gdansk District Court took evidence from the
applicant's witness.

     On 11 July 1994 the court decided to call evidence from
psychologist experts in order to assess whether altering the custody
arrangements was in the best interest of the child.  The case-file was
sent to the Family Diagnostic Centre in Warsaw.

     On 26 September 1994 the Family Diagnostic Centre submitted its
report.  The experts assessed the existing custody arrangements and
concluded that altering them was not recommended.

     On 4 and 30 November 1994 the court, on the applicant's ex-wife's
request, adjourned the hearing.  The hearing was held on 20 January
1995.  The court took further evidence from the experts. The applicant
contested the experts' report and requested the court to call other
experts.

     On 10 February 1995 the applicant requested the court to take
evidence from a further witness.

     On 7 March 1995 the applicant's ex-wife submitted a statement,
requesting the court to grant her permission to take her daughter to
Norway.

     On 17 March 1995 the court, on the applicant's ex-wife's request,
cancelled the hearing.

     On 19 June 1995 the court held a hearing.  The court took
evidence from three witnesses and the applicant.

     On the same day the court gave judgment. It dismissed the
applicant's request to alter the custody arrangements and it granted
his ex-wife permission to take the child to Norway.

     On 25 October 1995 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon the
applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of 19 June 1995 and referred
the case back to that court.  The proceedings are apparently pending.


10.  Proceedings concerning assault

     On 27 April 1993, while the presiding judge of the Warsaw
District Court was pronouncing a decision granting the applicant's ex-
wife permission to obtain a passport for their child, the applicant
assaulted the judge, hitting and kicking her several times.  He also
called her a "drunk judge".  On the same day he was arrested.

     On 29 April 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor charged the
applicant with assault causing actual bodily harm and insult and
detained him on remand until 27 May 1993 in view of the reasonable
suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question.

     On the same day the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the
detention order which was upheld on 14 May 1993.

     In the meantime the applicant was transferred from Bialol*ka
prison to the Warsaw Mokotów Prison Hospital to undergo psychiatric
observation, which psychiatric experts had considered necessary.

     Subsequently, the applicant submitted numerous complaints
concerning prison conditions, for instance that his fellow-inmates
smoked; that his complaints had not been sufficiently considered; that
cells were draughty and stinking; that the blankets were dirty; and
that he had only cold water to wash himself.

     On 21 May 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor prolonged the
applicant's detention on remand until 27 July 1993 in order to ensure
the proper course of proceedings.

     On 11 June 1993 the applicant requested the Warsaw District
Prosecutor to take evidence from psychiatric experts in order to assess
the mental health of the judges who had dealt with his cases concerning
divorce, maintenance and custody.  This request was dismissed on 21
June 1993.

     On 20 July 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor prolonged the
applicant's detention until 27 October 1993 in order to ensure the
proper course of proceedings.

     On 11 August 1993 the Warsaw District Prosecutor quashed the
detention order.  The applicant was released on the same day.

     On 9 September 1993 the Governor of the Warsaw Mokotów Prison
found that the applicant's complaints about prison conditions were
unsubstantiated.

     Between 16 September 1993 and 8 October 1993 the applicant
underwent a psychiatric examination in the Pruszków Mental Hospital.

     On 30 November 1993 a bill of indictment was lodged with the
Warsaw District Court which on 2 March 1994 held a hearing.  It took
evidence from the applicant and six witnesses.

     On 24 March 1994 the court, upon the applicant's request,
adjourned the hearing.

     On 13 April 1994 the court held a hearing and took further
evidence from witnesses.  On the same day, the court ordered further
investigations and referred the case back to the Warsaw District
Prosecutor.

     On 27 April 1994 the Warsaw Provincial Court, upon both parties'
appeal, quashed the order of 13 April 1994 and ruled that the case
should proceed to be examined.

     On 12 July 1994 the court adjourned a further hearing since the
applicant was ill.  The case was referred back to the Warsaw District
Prosecutor in order for him to supplement the charges against the
applicant.

     On 30 December 1994 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of
indictment with the Warsaw District Court.

     On 15 February 1995 a hearing was scheduled.  However, the
applicant's counsel requested the court to adjourn it since the
applicant was ill.  The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the
applicant to submit a medical certificate endorsed by the court's
expert on pain of being arrested.

     On 24 March 1995 the applicant's lawyer again requested the court
to adjourn the subsequent hearing since the applicant was ill.
However, he failed to submit a proper certificate.  The court issued
a warrant to arrest the applicant in order to ensure the proper course
of proceedings.

     On 26 March 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the
impartiality of the presiding judge.

     On 12 April 1995 at 9.50 p.m. the applicant was arrested.

     On 13 April 1995 at 9.10 a.m. a hearing commenced.  The applicant
again challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge and asked for
the hearing to be adjourned.  He also requested the court to refer his
case to the Supreme Court in order for it to be transferred to another
court as, in his view, the interests of justice so required.  The
hearing was adjourned.  The case was referred to the Supreme Court.

     On 2 June 1995 the Supreme Court refused to transfer the case to
another court.  The court found that there were no objective and
reasonable grounds for such measures.  In addition, the court held that
the mere fact that the injured party was a judge did not suffice to
shed doubts on the impartiality of the presiding judge and the Warsaw
District Court as a whole.  Otherwise, all other Polish courts would
have to be exempted from dealing with the applicant's case.

     On 21 September 1995 a hearing took place.  The court took
evidence from the injured party.  The applicant requested the court to
adjourn the hearing in order to call absent witnesses.

     On 17 October 1995 the next hearing was held.  The court took
evidence from two witnesses.  The parties requested the court to
adjourn the hearing and to take further evidence.

     On 24 November 1995 the court held a hearing and took evidence
from two witnesses.  The parties requested the court to adjourn the
hearing and take further evidence.

     On 21 December 1995, 9 and 20 February 1996 the court, upon the
applicant's request, cancelled the hearing.

     On 8 March 1996 the next hearing took place.  The court took
evidence from one witness and three psychiatric experts.

     On 11 March 1996 the Warsaw District Court convicted the
applicant of assault committed in a state of diminished responsibility
and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of PLZ 200.

     On 17 May 1996 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against
the judgment of the court of first instance.  On 1 July 1996 the
applicant lodged a supplementary appeal.

     On 31 October 1996 an appellate hearing before the Warsaw
Provincial Court was cancelled as the applicant had dismissed his
defence counsel a day before the hearing.

     On the same day the Warsaw Provincial Court appointed a new
lawyer for the applicant.

     On 18 November 1996 an appellate hearing was adjourned since on
15 November 1996 the applicant had again requested the court to refer
his case to the Supreme Court for another provincial court to be
assigned to examine his appeal.

     On 3 December 1996 the Warsaw Provincial Court dismissed the
request as being manifestly ill-founded.

     On 4 December 1996 the appeal hearing was held.  The applicant
did not appear; he was represented by his lawyer. The court dismissed
the applicant's appeal and, upon the prosecutor's appeal, amended the
judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the penalty
imposed.  The applicant was finally sentenced to four years'
imprisonment.

     On 8 March 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against
the judgment of the Warsaw Provincial Court of 4 December 1996.  The
proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court.


11.  Proceedings  concerning the assessment of disability

     On 22 June 1994 the Warsaw Social Security issued a decision
according to which the applicant suffered from a third degree
disability.  The applicant appealed against the above decision to the
Warsaw Provincial Court of Labour and Social Security (S*d Wojewódzki -
S*d Pracy i Ubezpieczen Spolecznych).  He submitted that in view of his
state of health he had a second degree disability.

     Subsequently, the court, upon the applicant's request, decided
to take evidence from various experts.  Their reports were submitted
on 22 March, 5 April and 21 May 1995, respectively.

     On 6 July 1995 the court, upon the applicant's request, cancelled
the hearing.

     On 21 September 1995 the court held a hearing and, upon the
applicant's request, ordered evidence from another medical expert.  The
expert's report which was submitted on 23 September 1995 concluded that
the applicant suffered from a third degree disability.

     On 21 November 1995 a hearing took place.  The applicant did not
appear although he had been duly summoned.  On the same day the court
gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision
of 22 June 1994.

     On 2 January 1996 the applicant appealed against the above
judgment to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny).

     On 25 January 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the
applicant's appeal.


12.  The applicant's requests to institute criminal proceedings
     against third persons

     Between 1991 and 1997 the applicant lodged numerous requests with
the Warsaw District Prosecutor.  He requested the Prosecutor to
institute criminal proceedings against judges, prosecutors, certain
court experts, police officers, his ex-wife and several other persons.
All of the applicant's requests were dismissed by the District
Prosecutor and, on appeal, by the Warsaw Provincial Prosecutor.


COMPLAINTS

1.   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
the divorce proceedings were conducted unfairly as the courts committed
serious errors of fact and law in their decisions.

2.   In respect of the defamation proceedings the applicant complains
under Article 6 of the Convention that the Skierniewice Provincial
Court refused to take evidence requested by him, which resulted in his
unjustified conviction.

3.   He complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the child
maintenance proceedings were conducted unfairly since the courts
committed serious errors of fact and law.

4.   Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the
Convention that the insult proceedings were conducted unfairly and that
the authorities lacked impartiality.

5.   He also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about
the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to permission
to issue a passport for his child.

6.   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
about the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for
compensation against the K company.

7.   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about
the unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim
for compensation against the Minister of the Interior.

8.   He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the
unfairness and the length of the proceedings relating to his claim for
compensation against the Minister of Justice.

9.   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
about the unfairness and the length of the custody proceedings.

10.  He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the
criminal proceedings instituted against him for assaulting the judge
were conducted unfairly and that their length exceeded a "reasonable
time" within the meaning of this provision.

11.  The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
about the outcome and the length of the proceedings relating to the re-
assessment of the degree of his disability.

12.  The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that
the length of detention on remand imposed on him in the assault case
exceeded a reasonable time.

13.  He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the
unhygienic conditions of his detention on remand amounted to inhuman
treatment.

14.  The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention,
that he was unable to institute criminal proceedings against third
persons.

15.  Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant submits that the
general conduct of his cases by the Polish authorities interfered with
his rights guaranteed under this provision.  He complains under Article
10 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to express his
opinion about the Polish judiciary and other organs.  Under Articles
13 and 18 of the Convention he alleges that he had no effective
domestic remedy against the violations of his human rights.  Finally,
under Article 14 of the Convention he claims that in the course of all
the proceedings relating to his family life he was discriminated
against on the ground of his sex.


THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention about the unfairness and the outcome of various proceedings
in which he was involved.

a)   The Commission notes that the applicant's complaints relate in
part to a period prior to 1 May 1993, i.e. the date on which Poland's
declaration acknowledging the right of individual petition took effect.
Since, in that declaration Poland limited the Commission's competence
to facts subsequent to the declaration, the Commission, by reason of
its competence ratione temporis, can only examine the applicant's
complaints insofar as they relate to the period after this date.

b)   With regard to the applicant's complaints about judicial
decisions which were given after 1 May 1993, the Commission recalls
that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its
only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by
the Parties to the Convention.  In particular, it is not competent to
deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been
committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such
errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention.  The Commission refers, on this
point, to its established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60,
Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43
pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

c)   The applicant complains about the unfairness, in particular, of
the maintenance proceedings which commenced on 24 July 1996, the
custody proceedings, the proceedings concerning assault and the
proceedings directed against the Minister of Justice and the Minister
of the Interior.  However, the Commission notes that these proceedings
are still pending and no final decisions have yet been given by the
domestic courts.  It follows that in this respect the application is
premature and that this part of the application must, therefore, be
declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded according to Article
27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.   In respect of the defamation proceedings the applicant complains
under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the Skierniewice
Provincial Court refused to take evidence requested by him, which
resulted in his unjustified conviction.

     The Commission recalls that the admissibility of evidence is
primarily a matter for regulation by national law.  As a rule, it is
for the national courts to assess the evidence before them whereas it
is the Commission's task to ascertain whether the proceedings
considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken,
were fair (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April
1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).

     In the present case the Commission finds no elements which would
indicate that the court went beyond its discretion to refuse to take
evidence in the course of the proceedings complained of.

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

3.   The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that the criminal proceedings instituted against him for
publicly insulting judges were conducted unfairly and that the
authorities lacked impartiality.

     The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to submit any
material relating to the course of these proceedings after 26 November
1992, i.e. the date on which he lodged an appeal against the decision
of the court of first instance.

     The Commission has nevertheless examined the applicant's
complaints as they have been submitted.  However, it finds no
indication that in the course of the proceedings complained of the
applicant's right to a fair trial was not respected or that the courts
lacked impartiality.

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

4.   The applicant also raises various complaints under Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the unreasonable length and
unfairness of several proceedings in which he was involved.

     The Commission, by reason of its competence ratione temporis, can
examine the applicant's complaints only insofar as they relate to
proceedings as from 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland's declaration
acknowledging the right of individual petition with a temporal
limitation took effect.  However, the Commission can take into account,
in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the proceedings at
the beginning of the period under consideration (No. 7984/77, Dec.
11.7.79, D.R. 16 p. 92).

     According to the Convention organs' case-law, the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case and having regard to the complexity of the
case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities
(see Eur. Court HR, Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991,
Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

a)   The applicant complains, first, about the unfairness and the
length of the proceedings relating to permission to issue a passport
for his child.

     The proceedings in question commenced on 8 August 1991 and ended
on 23 November 1995.  However, the period to be considered as from 1
May 1993 lasted two years, six months and twenty-two days.  The
Commission finds that in the conduct of these proceedings the Polish
authorities acted with the diligence required under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  It also notes that the applicant's
repeated challenges to the impartiality of the competent courts could
have contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in this case.

   Insofar as the applicant complains about the unfairness of the
proceedings referred to, the Commission finds no indication that the
applicant could not put forward his point of view in the course of
these proceedings or that they were otherwise unfairly conducted.

b)   The applicant complains, secondly, about the length of
proceedings relating to his claim for compensation against the K
company.

     The proceedings commenced on 27 February 1992 and ended on 29
November 1995.  The period to be considered under Article 6 (Art. 6)
of the Convention must be calculated from 1 May 1993 and, therefore,
amounts to two years, six months and twenty-eight days.  The Commission
observes that the Warsaw District Court rejected the applicant's claim
on 16 July 1993.  The subsequent proceedings related solely to the
issues of the retrospective leave to appeal out of time, the rejection
of the claim for non-compliance with formal requirements and the grant
of an exemption from court fees.  Even assuming that Article 6
(Art. 6) is applicable, the Commission does not find that, in the light
of the particular circumstances of the case, the Polish authorities
failed to act with the necessary diligence in this case.

c)   The applicant complains, thirdly, about the unfairness and the
length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation
against the Minister of the Interior.

     The proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in 1992 and are
currently pending.  The period to be considered, if calculated from 1
May 1993, currently exceeds three years and ten months.  The period in
question relates to the proceedings before the court of first instance,
the appeal proceedings, the subsequent proceedings before the court of
first instance and further appeal proceedings which are pending.  The
applicant twice increased the amount of compensation claimed and lodged
numerous requests for the court to take evidence.  The Commission finds
that the Polish authorities conducted the case with the diligence
required under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.  On the other
hand, the applicant contributed to  the length of the proceedings in
the way he chose to argue his case.

d)   The applicant complains, fourthly, about the unfairness and the
length of the proceedings relating to his claim for compensation
against the Minister of Justice.

     The proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in 1992 and are
pending.  The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993,
currently exceeds three years and ten months.  In the course of these
proceedings the applicant increased the amount of the compensation
claimed on four occasions, filed five requests for legal assistance and
a general exemption from court fees, and lodged three appeals.  In the
meantime, the court held four hearings.  The Commission finds that the
courts displayed the necessary diligence in the conduct of these
proceedings.  Moreover, possible delays in the proceedings could have
resulted from the applicant's various requests and appeals.

e)   The applicant complains, fifthly, about the unfairness and the
length of the custody proceedings.

     The proceedings commenced on 30 March 1993 and are apparently
pending.  The period to be considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993,
currently exceeds three years and ten months.  The Commission, however,
notes that the applicant has failed to submit any information as to the
course of these proceedings after 25 October 1995, i.e. the date on
which the Warsaw Provincial Court quashed the judgment of the court of
first instance.  In the light of the material submitted, the Commission
finds that this case was a complex one since evidence needed to be
taken from numerous witnesses proposed by the parties as well as from
experts.  In the meantime, the case was examined at first instance and
on appeal.  In view of the complexity and volume of the case, the
Commission does not consider that the Polish authorities failed to act
with the diligence required in the conduct of such cases.  Nor does the
Commission find that the applicant's conduct caused any undue delays
in the course of the proceedings complained of.

f)   The applicant complains, sixthly, that the criminal proceedings
instituted against him for assaulting the judge were conducted unfairly
and that their length exceeded a "reasonable time".

     The proceedings in question commenced on 27 April 1993 when the
applicant was arrested and they are pending.  The period to be
considered, if calculated from 1 May 1993, currently exceeds three
years and ten months.  During this time the court of first instance
held fourteen hearings.  On ten occasions the hearings were adjourned
or cancelled on the parties' or the applicant's request or because of
his absence.  Assessing the facts as a whole, the Commission finds that
the courts displayed the reasonable level of diligence required in the
conduct of such cases.  However, the applicant contributed to the
length of the proceedings in view of the number of his requests to
adjourn or cancel the hearings.

g)   The applicant complains, seventhly, about the outcome and the
length of the proceedings relating to the re-assessment of the degree
of his disability.

     The proceedings in question commenced on 22 June 1994 and ended
on 25 January 1996.  Thus, they lasted one year, six months and three
days. The case was complex as it involved a need to take evidence from
various medical experts who were called on the applicant's request.
Moreover, it does not transpire from the material submitted that there
were any delays in the proceedings which could be attributed to the
respective courts.

h)   As a consequence, the Commission finds that this part of the
applicant's complaints does not disclose any appearance of a violation
of his rights guaranteed under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of application is inadmissible as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5.   The applicant further complains under Article 5 para. 3
(Art. 5-3) of the Convention that the length of detention on remand
imposed on him in the assault case exceeded a reasonable time.

     The applicant was arrested on 27 April 1993 and released on 11
August 1993. On 12 April 1995 the applicant was again arrested and held
for approximately twelve hours.  The Commission, by reason of its
competence ratione temporis, can examine the applicant's complaints
only insofar as they relate to the proceedings as from 1 May 1993.
Therefore, the period of the applicant's detention to be considered
under the Convention lasted three months, ten days and twelve hours.

     The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they
have been submitted.  However, having regard to the fact that there was
a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in
question, and that the authorities considered that the need to ensure
the proper course of proceedings argued for his detention, the
Commission finds that the length of the applicant's detention does not
exceed a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3
(Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of application is also manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

6.   The applicant also complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention that the unhygienic conditions of his detention on remand
amounted to inhuman treatment.

     However, the Commission does not find that the detention
conditions complained of are such that they attain the level of
severity required under the Convention organs' case-law to fall within
the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (see Eur. Court HR,
Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no.
25, p. 65, para. 162).

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

7.   The applicant further complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that he was unable to institute criminal proceedings against
third persons.

     However, the Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings
instituted against third persons (No. 9777/82, Dec. 14.7.83, D.R. 34
p. 158).

     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

8.   The applicant finally complains generally about the conduct of
the Polish authorities, invoking Articles 8, 10, 13, 14 and 18
(Art. 8, 10, 13, 14, 18) of the Convention.

     The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they
have been submitted by him.  However, after considering the case as a
whole, the Commission finds that the complaints do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.

     It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.


   M.-T. SCHOEPFER                              G.H. THUNE
      Secretary                                  President
to the Second Chamber                      of the Second Chamber