FINAL DECISIONS A. Decisions declaring a communication inadmissible Communication No. 837/1998 Submitted by: Janusz Kolanowski Alleged victim: The author State party: Poland Declared inadmissible: 6 August 2003 Subject matter: Absence of judicial control over decisions about police promotions training rather than officer’s training for policemen with a higher education degree. Procedural issues: Incompatibility ratione materiae and ratione temporis - Level of substantiation of claim 2.3 On 24 April 1991, the author had a conversation with the Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Internal Affairs concerning his appointment to the higher rank. In a memorandum reflecting the conversation, the Under-Secretary of State expressed his approval for the author’s appointment to the rank of an aspirant, a transitional rank between that of non-commissioned officers and the rank of officer. However, this approval was annulled by the Chief Commander of the Police on 20 August 1991, on the basis that the author’s appointment to the “aspirant rank” by means of an exceptional procedure was unjustified. Substantive issues: Interpretation of notion of “suit at law” Articles of the Covenant: 14, paragraph 1; 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2; 3 1. The author of the communication is Janusz Kolanowski, a Polish citizen, born on 13 July 1949. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Poland1 of articles 14, paragraph 1, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). He is not represented by counsel. 2.4 By letter of 26 August 1991 to the General Commander of the Police in Warsaw, the author appealed the rejection of his appointment. On 28 August 1991, he sent a similar complaint to the Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In his response, dated 16 September 1991, the General Commander of the Police once again informed the author that he did not have the required officer’s training. On 29 June 1994, the Minister of Internal Affairs refused to institute proceedings with respect to the rejection of the author’s appointment to the aspirant rank, which was not considered an administrative decision within the meaning of article 104 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP). The facts as submitted 2.1 The author has been employed in the Polish police (formerly the Civic Militia) since 1973. In 1975, he completed the School for Noncommissioned Officers of the Police in Pila. He obtained a doctoral degree in “Sciences of Physical Culture” in 1991. 2.2 On 7 January 1991, the author requested the Chief Commander of the Police to appoint him to the rank of officer in the police. His request was denied on 22 February 1991, since he lacked the required “officer” training to be appointed to that rank. The author appealed this decision before the Minister of Internal Affairs, arguing that article 50, paragraph 1, of the Police Act (PA) only required professional 2.5 On 25 August 1994, the Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected another motion of the author for appointment to the aspirant rank dated 19 July 1994. After the author had unsuccessfully filed an objection to this decision with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, he lodged a complaint with the High Administrative Court in Warsaw on 6 December 1994, challenging the non-delivery of an administrative decision on his appointment. On 27 January 1995, the Court dismissed the complaint, as the refusal to appoint the author to the higher rank was not an administrative decision. 1 The Covenant and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant entered into force for the State party respectively on 18 June 1977 and 7 February 1992. 3