Imieniny:

AferyPrawa.com

Redaktor Zdzisław Raczkowski ujawnia niekompetencje funkcjonariuszy władzy...
http://Jooble.org
Najczęściej czytane:
Najczęściej komentowane:





Pogoda
Money.pl - Kliknij po więcej
7 maja 2021
Źródło: MeteoGroup
Polskie prawo czy polskie prawie! Barwy Bezprawia

opublikowano: 26-10-2010

 Warsaw, May 2005

 OH THESE SLUGGISH COURTS
 
OR THE
SYSTEM OF (IN)JUSTICE
IN THE DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY 
THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

 As an employee of the Office of the Council of Ministers – head specialist in the Department of Public Administration - on May 6, 1993 I was directed to take over M-6 type premises, held by the Housing Association Kabaty, by the decision of the then residing Undersecretary of State Robert Karwowski. The Office of the Council of Ministers financed entirely 10 residential lots in segmented homes, “small housing”, and in a large apartment building. Employees who were appointed flats were to return the funds spent by the Office on construction. What turned out?

 1.      Only from me, out of all of the employees mentioned above, the Office of the Council of Ministers illegally took the residence I was living in before, which I had paid for in whole. I was refunded only the building costs, which was less than half the market price. Plus, I was charged for general redecoration of the flat, which shrunk the sum I received. My flat was taken over not only illegally, but also unprofessionally, fortunately for me. My loss of ownership was not notarised, therefore, according to the law, I am still the rightful owner. The other employees’ flats were not taken away from them, and there were even cases, where one person was granted two segments of 280 sq. meters each, with a lot, for a fee lower than what I paid for my apartment of 84 sq. meters in a multi-tenant building.

 2.      Only in my case, in the statement appointing me a flat, the Office demanded a sum inadequate to what it paid the Housing Association. A sum higher than stated in the agreements between OCM and HA Kabaty (which included agreements regulating directing employees to the Association, along with flat prices).

 3.      In the statement directing me to take over the apartment only I lacked an apartment number and area of the flat. Only the type was specified. This fact lead to another abuse, this time committed by the executives of the association, when I received a smaller flat of lesser value.

 4.      Having the decision of my claiming the flat, dated May 6, 1993, the Association rejected my membership for 7 months. Meanwhile illegally handling my money (the sum I paid exceeded the price stated in the agreements mentioned above) and the Office’s, gaining profit and putting the National Treasury and me at risk of loss. I liquidated high interest bank deposits.

 In other words a nightmare and in the highest office in the country.

 Because this took place in the office where the Government is based, I took advantage of the opportunity to present the facts described here, in the form of a complaint to the following people (among others):

1.      Citizen’s Rights Spokesman, Mr Adam Zieliński and Mr Andrzej Zoll 
2.      The Prime Minister (4 times) directly in the office of the minister as well as through the office of Member of Parliament Jacek Kuroń, 
3.      Speaker of Parliament, Mr Józef Zych,
4.      Senator Mr Piotr Łukasz Juliusz Andrzejewski,
5.      The President of Poland, Mr Aleksander Kwaśniewski.

 I was convinced that my problem would be positively resolved. Unfortunately, none of the high officials responsible for abiding the law in the country took up my case.

 In this obvious situation, on July 13, 1995 I directed my case to the District Court of Warsaw Mokotów Civil Department II against the Office of the Council of Ministers and the Housing Association Kabaty.

Having failed to review the matter of the case for no less than 9 years and without even conducting any proceedings, on May 31, 2004 the Warsaw District Court, Third Civil Section issued a decision in the case based entirely on an expert opinion, which contains serious misrepresentations of provisions of the agreements between the Office of the Council of Ministers and the Housing Association Kabaty as well as the facts of the case. (expert opinion enclosed)  

During the Court's period of inactivity, which lasted 8 years and 10 months, judges changed as many as 5 times – and that without any motion of the parties concerned. The applicant's case was conducted in turn by judges:

·        Ms Hanna Bajer, Voivodship Court Judge

·        Ms Małgorzata Boniecka–Płaczkowska, Regional Court Judge

·        Ms J. Elżanowska – Skotarek, District Court Judge

·        Ms Małgorzata Kuracka, District Court Judge

·        Ms Elżbieta Ziołkowska, District Court Judge.

 During these 9 years only 3 hearings have been listed, two of which have not been held / except for the second one/ due to the default of one of the defendants: 

·        On March 24(?) – full date not provided on the Court's record of the hearing at which the it decided to adjourn the case due to the default of one of the parties. The Court failed to list the date of the next hearing,  

·        On June 9, 1999, which consisted in the preliminary hearing of only the applicant and the date of the next hearing had not been listed, 

·        On April 3, 2001, at which the Court decided to adjourn the case due to the default of one of the parties. The Court failed to list the date of the next hearing,  

On 18 June, 2002 The Warsaw District Court, Third Civil Section sitting as a Chamber composed of a single judge – Mr J. Kotarek, District Court Judge, deliberating in private decided to stay proceedings in the case against the Housing Association Kabaty and the Office of the Council of Ministers.

In reasons to the Court's decision we may read: The files of the case show that the applicant failed to follow the Court's order of May 14, 2002. The applicant had not specified her demand, failed to indicate the defendant and had failed to take a stand in her reply to the counter-claim submitted on October 9, 1996 and thus, for the aforementioned reasons the case cannot continue any further. Pursuant to Article 177 Paragraph 1 sec.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure it has been decided as above.
/decision enclosed/
 

In effect of the applicant's appeal against the above decision, on December 9, 2002 the Court of Appeals decided to quash the District Court's decision of June 18, 2002 pointing to a series of procedural errors made by the District Court and its years long inactivity. /decision enclosed/ 

At the hearing held on May 18, 2004 only the applicant appeared (the defendants failed to show up). A District Court Judge, Elżbieta Ziołkowska, informed the applicant that the case is to be closed and the judgment announced on the basis of the exhaustive - as she said - expert opinion. The applicant familiarized herself with the opinion on May 12, 2004 / three working days before the hearing which ended proceedings and was not in a position to prepare appropriately at such short notice, especially that the applicant had not retained an attorney and could not even imagine the Court's intention to close the case since no trial was held over the 9 years that had passed and no expert opinion alone should suffice to end proceedings. As a result of the applicant's pleading of May 2004 the Court deferred the reading of the judgment to May 31, 2004.

The Court of Appeals in its decision of December 9, 2002, drew attention to serious procedural errors, however, the District Court failed to take this into account and issued the said judgment, which is contrary to the evidence collected in the case, without even holding a trial.

I take this opportunity to quote an excerpt of the judgment (full text of the judgment will be published as an attachment):

„IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND 
The Warsaw District Court, Third Civil Section sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Presiding Judge Elżbieta Ziołkowska, District Court Judge
Court Recorder, Karina Teller
Having reviewed on May 18, 2004 in Warsaw
the case brought before the Court in an action by Ewa Biskupska
against the Kabaty Housing Association in Warsaw
and the State Treasury - the Office of the Council of Ministers for payment and specific performance order 
and the counter-claim of the Kabaty Housing Association in Warsaw against Ewa Biskupska
orders to pay the amount of PLN 4,389.64 and the amount of PLN 2,538.83
 

1.      Dismisses the main claim,

2.      As to the counter-claim: orders Ewa Biskupska to pay the Kabaty Housing Association the amount of PLN 6,928.47 including statutory interest,
on the amount of PLN 2,398.64 as of December 1, 1995
on the amount of PLN 1,000.00 as of January 1, 1996 
on the amount of PLN 1,000.00 as of January 1, 1996
on the amount of PLN 2,538.83 as of February 1, 1996;

3.      Orders Ewa Biskupska to pay the Kabaty Housing Association the amount of PLN 4,010.00 and the State Treasury – the Office of the Council of Ministers the amount of PLN 3,600.00 in respect of the reimbursement of lawsuit costs.” 

On 25 February 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeals, Sixth Civil Section issued a judgment which is contrary to the evidence collected in the case as well. Moreover, in its decision of April 25, 2005 the Court of Appeals dismissed the motion to suspend the enforcement of the judgment until the Supreme Court's review of the plea for the annulment of the judgment, which I have asked Mr Andrzej Zoll as the Ombudsman to prepare due to the fact that my case is an example of a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning protection of property rights as well as its Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (d) – right to a fair trial and the so called equality before courts.  

It must be added that persons with administrative supervision over the whole course of the proceedings in the District Court were: 
Voivodship Court Judge, Ms Hanna Bajer – Presiding Judge at the Third Section of the Voivodship Court and
Voivodship Court Judge, Mr Dariusz Korszeń, Visiting Judge.

District Court Judge, Ms Małgorzata Kuracka – presently Presiding Judge at the Third Section of the District Court
 

             You should also know, that the Housing Association Kabaty admitted its offence publicly, before a full auditorium, at a Special Members’ Meeting, held on March 31, 1998. The association’s chief accountant asked the members not to administer the funds belonging to the OCM, that have been on the association’s account for several years. They are intended for taking care of my case, among other things. (Information about the costs can be found in the case files, page 7 confirms this fact) Having admitted to this fact the chief accountant was fired.

            The actions of the Warsaw courts show that the courts in “democratic” Poland are not yet independent and apolitical, as aren’t the verdicts. Even though, at a meeting in Copenhagen in 1993, the European Council stated the 4 basic criteria for countries aspiring for membership in the EU. They are: stability of the institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, observance of human rights. The European Tribunal decided, that

EVERY COURT, JUDGING A CASE, HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK WHETHER HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.

As far as I know, Poland has signed this document, but what comes of it?

Independently of the "pending” or rather suspended -as the Court of Appeals referred to them - proceedings before the civil court, on February 27, 2001 I have lodged a request to the District Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw to institute an investigation with respect to the employees of the Office of the Council of Ministers, presently the Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, responsible for handling my affairs.  

  1. On March 13, 2001 the District Prosecutor's Office referred my request to the proper jurisdiction of the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor's Office.
  1. On August 7, 2001 I have received from the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor's Office a decision, issued on April 19, 2001, denying my request for the investigation.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr Artur Jochym of the Warszawa-Mokotów Regional Prosecutor's Office having reviewed the files in the matter concerning acts by officers of the Office of the Council of Ministers overstepping their authority decided to deny my request for the investigation.

In reasons to his decision we may read, among others, that:, the employees of the Office of the Council of Ministers Administrative Bureau, directing me on May 6, 1993 to take the possession of the M-6 type apartment in the Rosoła–Nowoursynowska housing development have illegally taken over the apartment in the housing stock of the Housing Association Stoklosy which I have heretofore occupied. Proceedings cannot be continued with respect thereto due to the expiration of the 5-year limitation period for the act's amenability to punishment provided for under Article 231 §1 of the Criminal Code. 

  1. On August 9, 2001 I have lodged a complaint against the decision of the Regional Prosecutor's Office of April 19, 2001 requesting the above decision to be repealed in its entirety as one made in contravention of the provisions of law, and in particular of the Articles 42 and 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and in particular of its Article 2 as well as Article 231 §2 of the Criminal Code. 

In reasons to the complaint I informed that the documents submitted by me to the Prosecutor's Office show that an offence has been committed and that against both myself as well the State Treasury consisting, among others, in:

Ø     Illegal takeover of my apartment, of which I was the rightful owner, located at 5 Zamiany Street, Apt. No. 36 in Warsaw,

Ø     Obtaining deceitfully an amount of twice the price of the apartment than resulted from agreements between the Office of the Council of Ministers and the Housing Association.

Ø     Allocation of a smaller apartment than provided for in the above mentioned agreements,

Ø     Having handled, for over 6 months, my money which constituted an amount exceeding the price of a 280 meters row house including land at that housing development (interest rate at that time was approximately 70 % p.a.) and the money of the State Treasury in the amount which exceeded the price of a row house and a 100 meters apartment. To date, money belonging to the State Treasury has not been reclaimed from the Housing Association.

In the face of such serious offences and no thorough investigation of the case it should not have been qualified as falling under Article 231 §1 of the Criminal Code (CC). Since several offences are involved Article 231 §2 CC should have been applied.

Under this qualification the period of limitation expires after 10 years – Article 101 §1 CC. 

  1. On January 15, 2002 –the Warszawa-Mokotów Regional Court, Third Criminal Section sitting as a Chamber composed of a single judge – the Presiding Judge, Igor Tuleya, and the attending Public Prosecutor, Barbara Brzeska–Zbieć, decides not to admit the complaint and uphold the appealed decision.

In reasons to the Court's decision we read, among others, that: 
The complaint cannot be admitted. The applicant failed to provide any new and material circumstances in the submitted appeal which could cause the said decision to be upheaved.

            The Regional Public Prosecutor has made a correct assessment of the gathered             material and has reasonably recognized that:

Ø      Firstly, any potential offence involving the Office of the Council of Ministers officers overstepping their powers with respect to Ewa Biskupska would meet the criteria of the act described in Article 231 § 1 CC,

Ø      Secondly, the period of limitation has already elapsed. ... 

In consequence of my proceedings before the Polish Court and the Tribunal in Strasbourg during reorganization of office my former employer treated me as follows: 

·        On October 29, 1996, the Organizer of the Prime Minister’s Office gave me a preliminary agreement guaranteeing me work on an equivalent position (head specialist) in the newly forming office (since January 1997). This agreement was signed by the previously mentioned Organizer, the manager of my department and myself, in the presence of the manager - in total, three persons from Office of the Council of Ministers. 

·        On January 10, 1997 I received a new engagement in which, as of January 1, 1997 I am being offered work as junior department manager, degrading me by 8 positions. 

·        I might add, that by order of Office of the Council of Ministers the requirements for this position are 2 years of experience and secondary education, while I have completed a higher education as master of economics at Warsaw University and at the time had 18 years of experience, now over 23. The position I was offered not only degraded my professional growth and experience, but also enabled me to do my work as head specialist in the Economic Committee of advisors for Office of the Council of Ministers. 

·        Since I did not accept the new engagement (with an expired date), on January 23, 1997 my contract of employment was terminated without any reason. (copies of the related documents, including an assessment of my work and position description in footnote)  

·        Although management evaluated my work with a positive outcome, for over 11 years of work in government administration I have not once received a promotion, my wage and bonuses are lower than those of employees with secondary or even vocational education, who are performing non-content related work. The multiplier of my wage is lower than that of new employees hired in my department.

·        For 15 years my employers have methodically used mobbing against me, consisting in, among others, subordinating me to an employee holding a position of a deputy referendary without a permanent contract of employment, constant reductions of my remuneration, assigning typical office organization work (typing, substituting for other people in the secretariat). And when I got involved in organizing a trade union to put a stop to all this, on November 26, 2004 I was served with a notice of termination with immediate effect from my other employer - the Civil Service Office.  

·        When in January 1997 I reported my problems to the labour union „Solidarność” of Region Mazowsze, near Trzech Krzyży Square (as a former union member, I gave money for the interned, although I was raising a child on one wage), the lawyer on duty there asked me why I came to him, when there was a „Solidarność” circle in the OCM since 1990. When I began working in OCM on May 1, 1990, I noted being in the union on a personal information form, but despite that no one informed me of such a circle. I found out in the union labour registration section, that the chairman of this branch is Mrs. Barbara P., chief of Deputy Prime Minister Leszek Miller’s political office, and the secretary is an employee of the personnel department Mr Bogumił B., presently a parliament member from the SLD party, who handed me my employment contract termination. NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF OCM (except for the privileged) KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS BRANCH!!! Since the creation of this branch in 1990, until present day there has been no information about it’s existence in this office (Office of the Prime Minister)!!! Although I am an employee of the central office subordinate to the Primer Minister, the current chairman refused to accept my membership in the union.  

·        I have also turned for help many times to the Helsinki Human Rights Foundation in Warsaw, where I was simply sent away. Similarly as in the Supreme Control Chamber, which upon my complaint regarding HA Kabaty, began control but changed it’s extent during the evaluation, to prevent from revealing a crime. I received trite responses, contradictory to the facts, what I show in the included attachments.  

o        Additionally, Mr Andrzej R., the lawyer who agreed to take my case and in October 1996 was initially very active had for some time been acting as if someone had had prohibited him from handling my case. In this situation I have withdrawn his power of attorney ad litem. In October 1996 I have paid the attorney Andrzej R. (in the presence of attorney Jacek H.) an advance amounting to an equivalent of my 5 salaries – attorney Andrzej R. refused to issue an invoice.

o        Due to the fact that the Polish authorities are intent on doing everything possible not to let my case be resolved either in Poland or on the international forum, because it is connected with a serious governmental housing scandal that was disclosed by the Supreme Chamber of Control and which received a wide press coverage (in the Życie and Rzeczpospolita dailies) and recently also on the Internet under www.przekret.w.pl – which was blocked in mid 2004. In December 2004 my own web site published in November 2000 (www.iyp.org/my/ewa/) shared the same fate. I have communicated this fact to the Warsaw District Prosecutor's Office and notified the Helsinki Human Rights Foundation. The District Prosecutor's Office sent my letter back and advised me to contact the owner of the server. In this situation I have decided to publish my case on the INTERNET once again. I will also be keeping you informed of any new developments in this utterly shocking case.  

Because of the years' long and very disturbing surveillance of my family, through the Danish Embassy in Warsaw my son and I have applied for a political asylum in Denmark.The Danish authorities denied assistance without undertaking any explanatory proceedings. 
P.S
. The top officers in the Office of the Council of Ministers Administrative Bureau, who are the culprits in the case have not only suffered no punishment for their acts but even continue to hold top management offices at Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, the successor of the Office of the Council of Ministers.

As not to be groundless I include the most important documents for your viewing. 

1.      Notice of the Administrative Bureau concerning the opportunity to purchase an apartment or a row house,

2.      Agreement of July 20, 1988 concluded between the Office of the Council of Minister and the Housing Association Kabaty of OCM Employees

3.      Agreement of June 29, 1992 concluded between OCM and HA Kabaty,

4.      Letter of the Housing Association Kabaty No. SM/286/92 of June 15, 1992 constituting an appendix to the Agreement of June 29 1992 in which the Housing Association presented facts concerning the investment project and full costs of construction of all (10 ) apartments executed under agreements.

5.      Counter claim of the Housing Association Kabaty,

6.      Reply to the counter claim,

7.      Decision of the District Court on the suspension of the case,

8.      Decision of the Court of Appeals in the case,

9.      Expert opinion,

10.  Comments to the expert opinion,

11.  Judgment of the District Court, Third Civil Section in Warsaw,

12.  The Appeal

13.  Judgment of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Civil Section in Warsaw

14.  Letter from the Court of Appeals refusing to stay the enforcement of the judgment until the Supreme Court's review of the plea for the annulment of the judgment.

 Ewa Biskupska, Warsaw
ebiskupska@yahoo.com
, ebiskupska@wp.pl

www.aferyprawa.com - Niezależne Wydawnictwo Internetowe "AFERY KORUPCJA BEZPRAWIE" Ogólnopolskiego Ruchu Praw Obywatelskich i Walki z Korupcją.
prowadzi: (-)  ZDZISŁAW RACZKOWSKI.
Dziękuję za przysłane opinie i informacje. 
    uwagi i wnioski proszę wysyłać na adres: Z.Raczkowski@aferyprawa.com 

WSZYSTKICH SĘDZIÓW INFORMUJĘ ŻE PROWADZENIE STRON PUBLICYSTYCZNYCH
JEST W ZGODZIE z  Art. 54 KONSTYTUCJI RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ 
1 - Każdemu zapewnia się wolność wyrażania swoich poglądów oraz pozyskiwania i rozpowszechniania informacji. 
2 - Cenzura prewencyjna środków społecznego przekazu oraz koncesjonowanie prasy są zakazane.
ponadto Art. 31.3
Ograniczenia w zakresie korzystania z konstytucyjnych wolności i praw mogą być ustanawiane tylko w ustawie i tylko wtedy, gdy są konieczne w demokratycznym państwie dla jego bezpieczeństwa lub porządku publicznego, bądź dla ochrony środowiska, zdrowia i moralności publicznej, albo wolności i praw innych osób. Ograniczenia te nie mogą naruszać istoty wolności i praw.

zdzichu

Komentarze internautów:

Komentowanie nie jest już możliwe.