II. Relevant domestic law

15. At the relevant time the legislation provided as follows:

Article 236 of the Criminal Code:

"Anyone who insults a civil servant... during and in connection with the carrying out of his official duties is liable to up to two years' imprisonment, to restriction of personal liberty or to a fine."

"Kto {zniewaza} funkcjonariusza publicznego... podczas i w {zwiazku} z {pelnieniem obowiazkow sluzbowych}, podlega karze pozbawienia {wolnosci} do lat 2, ograniczenia {wolnosci} albo grzywny."

Article 59 § 1 of the Criminal Code:

"If a perpetrator has committed a premeditated offence of a hooligan nature, the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment not lower than one and a half times the minimum sentence provided..."

"{Jezeli} sprawca {dopuscil sie umyslnego wystepku} o charakterze {chuliganskim}, {sad} wymierza {kare} pozbawienia {wolnosci} nie {nizsza} od dolnego {zagrozenia zwiekszonego o polowe}..."

Article 120 § 14 of the Criminal Code provided that an offence should be regarded as being of a hooligan nature if the perpetrator acted in public, without any justifiable motive or with an obviously unjustified one, thus demonstrating flagrant contempt for legal order.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

16. Mr Janowski applied to the Commission on 25 January 1994. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, complaining that the {Zdunska} Wola District Court had refused to grant him legal aid and hear two defence witnesses and had produced minutes which did not reflect statements made by witnesses and the applicant during the hearing. He also complained under Article 10 that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression.

17. The Commission declared the application (No. 25716/94) admissible on 27 November 1996 with the exception of the applicant's complaints under Article 6. In its report of 3 December 1997 (former Article 31 of the Convention), it expressed by eight votes to seven the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 10. The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment <*>.

--------------------------------

<*> Note by the Registry. For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the final printed version of the judgment (in the official reports of selected judgments and decisions of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the Registry.

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

18. The applicant in his memorial requested the Court to find that the facts of the case disclosed violations of Articles 3, 6, 7 § 1 and 10 of the Convention and to award him just satisfaction under former Article 50 (now Article 41).

The Government for their part requested the Court to find that Article 10 had not been violated in the present case.

THE LAW

I. Scope of the case

19. In his memorial to the Court the applicant raised several complaints under Articles 3, 6, 7 § 1 and 10 of the Convention. The Court observes that only the applicant's complaint under Article 10 that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression was declared admissible by the Commission (see paragraphs 16 - 17 above).

20. The Court is therefore required to examine only the applicant's complaint under Article 10 (see, mutatis mutandis, the McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, pp. 1354 - 55, §§ 68 - 70).