On 24 April, the European Court in Strasbourg issued a judgment in the case Matyjek versus Poland stating the violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The case of T. Matyjek was the first Polish case concerning lustration proceedings considered by the Court. (27-APR-07)
Written by Marta Lempicka / HRH Warsaw.
T. Matyjek was deemed a lustration liar based on the act of 1997. He submitted a lustration declaration in connection with his election to the Polish Sejm. As a result of the conducted lustration proceedings, he was stripped of his parliamentary mandate and was deprived of the opportunity to perform a series of public functions (specified by the lustration act) for a period of 10 years. T. Matyjek lodged a complaint against the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair and public hearing). In particular, he complained about the fact that he was unable to effectively defend himself, as he was not allowed to take notes during the proceedings before the lustration court due to limited access to case records (he was only given the opportunity to view the records, without the opportunity to take notes outside the security office). On 30 May 2006, the European Court of Human Rights issued an admissibility decision stating that the guarantees resulting from Article 6 of the Convention in the extent, in which they regulate the situation of the accused individual during a criminal trial, apply to lustration proceedings based on the act of 1997.
On 2 November 2006, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights presented an “amicus curiae opinion” in this case. In this opinion, the Foundation emphasized that the aim of the lustration act was to disclose the truth about the cooperation of a certain category of public persons with security services. Considering the social significance of lustration proceedings and the serious consequences for the individual who filed an untrue declaration, the principles of the state of law and procedural guarantees for the person subject to lustration must be meticulously observed. The Foundation emphasized the key significance of the right to access records in lustration proceedings. If a Party whom the documents concern was not given access to them, its ability to negate the version of events presented by the security services is seriously limited.
In the judgment, the Court stated that if the State decides to introduce lustration proceedings, than it must ensure that the individuals they concern will be guaranteed all procedural safeguards resulting from the Convention. In the Court’s opinion, due to the secrecy of the documents and restrictions in access to case records by the lustrated individual, as well as due to the privileged position of the Commissioner for Public Interest in lustration proceedings, the opportunity for the Complainant to prove that he did not consciously and secretly cooperate with security services in the understanding of the lustration act of 1997 has been seriously limited. The rules of lustration proceedings failed to respect the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings and were constructed in such a way that it was practically impossible for the Complainant to cope with the burden of proof.
The Court’s judgment in the case of Matyjek versus Poland is particularly significant at a time when many social circles have been protesting against the lustration act in force since 15 March 2007 and the act itself is awaiting a Constitutional Tribunal ruling concerning its conformity with the Constitution.
