Subject matter Unfair hearing to dismiss individual as liquidator of company

The judge ruled that Waldemar should replace the author as Capital's liquidator.

2.4 On 18 December 1995, Waldemar filed his first motion to replace the author as liquidator.

At the meeting, Waldemar voted against the author's candidature and threatened that he would have the author removed as liquidator.

On 15 October 1998, after re examining the case, the Plock District Court dismissed the author as liquidator and appointed Waldemar.

2.5 Pursuant to this ruling, the author's name was immediately deleted from the Commercial Register, and Waldemar's name was inserted as liquidator.

On 21 October 1996, an appeal by Waldemar was denied and in January 1997, the Registry was amended to show the author as liquidator.

On 6 November 1995, in a meeting with Waldemar, the author, as the majority shareholder, passed a resolution dissolving Capital and elected himself as liquidator.

He also refers to the fact that after the District Court's ruling on the first motion, Waldemar's name was immediately entered in the Commercial Registry as liquidator.

According to the judgement, the Court gave several reasons for its decision and determined that the author had failed to fulfil his responsibilities as liquidator under the Commercial Code.

Each time the District Court dismissed the author as liquidator it did so in the author's absence, and allegedly refused to allow the submission of evidence to support his case.

On 27 May 1996, the judge of the District Court reversed her ruling of 15 March 1996, admitting that she had exceeded her authority by entering Waldemar's name as liquidator in the Commercial Register.

3.1 The author claims that his rights under articles 2 and 14 were violated, as he did not receive a fair and public hearing to defend himself against repeated attempts to dismiss him as liquidator.

Her reasons for this ruling included the author's failure to register the liquidation until 3 January 1996, and his United States residence, which rendered him less able to carry out the duties of liquidator (either personally or through his agents).

The decision of 11 July 1997 to dismiss the author as liquidator was quashed on 30 October 1997 by the Circuit Court, which sent the case back to the District Court, as the author had not been properly summoned and was unrepresented at the hearing.

6.2 As to the author's claim that he did not receive a fair and public hearing to defend himself against repeated attempts to dismiss him as liquidator, the Committee observes that the author's allegations relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the courts.