5.  The applicant, Mr Oskar Orzeł, is a Polish national who was born in 1978. He is a student and lives in Częstochowa, Poland. 6.  Since early childhood, the applicant suffered from chronic inflammation of the vascular coat of his eyes. On 27 December 1984 the Katowice Clinical Hospital (Szpital Kliniczny w Katowicach) began to provide the applicant with both outpatient and inpatient care. After a few months, Professor G.-Ł. was put in charge of the applicant’s treatment. 7.  In October 1988 Professor G.-Ł. recommended that the applicant undergo a laser coagulation surgery of his right eye. As she did not have experience in providing that kind of treatment, she decided that Doctor F.‑K. would perform the surgery. 8.  In the early morning of 4 November 1988 the applicant, who at that time was ten years old, arrived together with his mother at the Katowice Clinical Hospital. At 11 a.m. Doctor F.-K. started to receive patients. The applicant was received at around 2 p.m. as the last patient. He entered the examination room together with his mother. Except for Doctor F.-K., no other medical staff were present in the room. 9.  The applicant was seated in a chair facing Doctor F.-K., whereas his mother stood behind her watching the treatment. The applicant was calm and relaxed. A red light on a laser started to flash indicating that the surgery was underway. Suddenly, Doctor F.-K. shouted in a stern voice “look straight”. At that moment, the applicant’s mother observed that his left eye moved. Soon afterwards, the red light stopped flashing, indicating that the treatment was finished. Doctor F.-K. stood up without saying a word. The applicant and his mother left the room. While putting on his clothes in the hospital corridor, the applicant told his mother that he could not see with his right eye. The mother immediately went back to the examination room and informed Doctor F.-K. about it. She also asked whether this was a normal reaction after the surgery but received no answer. The applicant’s mother asked Doctor F.-K. when the applicant should report for a check-up. She was informed that he should keep his previously booked appointment in a week’s time. 10.  On 5 November 1988 the applicant was examined in the ophthalmological ward of the Częstochowa Regional Hospital (Wojewódzki Szpital Zespolony). He was diagnosed with a cataract and a hole in the capsule of the lens. The doctor who examined the applicant considered that his loss of vision was caused by a laser surgery. 11.  In 1989 and 1990 the applicant received medical treatment in Germany, Russia and Poland. 12.  On 23 March 1990 the applicant, represented by his mother, lodged with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action in which he claimed compensation from the Katowice Clinical Hospital. The applicant also asked the court to find the defendant liable for any future deterioration of his health resulting from the alleged medical malpractice. He claimed that because of the negligence of a doctor who carried out the surgery, the capsule of the lens in his right eye had been punctured. It led to a cataract and required further medical treatment. As a result of the medical malpractice the applicant, who was thirteen, was an invalid and had thoughts of suicide. 13.  Before 1 May 1993 nine hearings were held and three medical opinions were submitted to the court. 14.  On 22 June 1993 the applicant extended his claim. He requested a monthly allowance. The applicant based his claim on the fact that the alleged medical negligence resulted in his permanent disability and thus increased his needs and deprived him of many opportunities to succeed in his life. 15.  On 13 July 1993 the Regional Court held a hearing. 16.  On 23 November 1993 the trial court received an expert opinion from the Gdansk Medical Academy. 17.  On 7 February 1994 the defendant filed with the trial court written pleadings in which it rejected the applicant’s claims. 18.  Between 8 February and 18 November 1994 six hearings were held and the court requested two supplementary medical opinions from the Gdansk Medical Academy. They were submitted to the trial court on 17 March 1994 and 16 February 1995. 19.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 8 June, 6 July, 28 November 1995 and 22 January 1996. 20.  On 31 January 1996 the Katowice Regional Court delivered a judgment. It considered that Doctor F.-K. was “negligent, imprudent, clumsy and careless” in performing a laser coagulation surgery of the applicant’s eye on 4 November 1988. The court assessed her conduct during the surgery against that of a diligent professional (dobry fachowiec) but found on her part several shortcomings, which showed that she failed in her duty of care required under that standard. In particular, the court considered that the doctor did not immobilise the eyeball which was being operated on. The court referred to expert opinions obtained during the proceedings. It awarded the applicant 1,500 Polish zlotys (PLN) by way of pecuniary damage and PLN 15,000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage together with interest. The court dismissed the remainder of the claim for compensation. 21.  Both parties appealed to the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). 22.  On 17 May 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case to the trial court. The appellate court considered that some of the shortcomings on the part of Doctor F.-K. found by the trial court were “problematic” and did not have “a direct influence on the resultant damage”. Only the failure to immobilise the eyeball could have constituted relevant negligence. The Court of Appeal also criticised the Regional Court’s assessment of compensation awarded to the applicant and found that some facts had not been properly established. In particular, the trial court had failed to ascertain whether the applicant and his mother had been informed how he was to conduct himself during the operation and about its potential complications. 23.  On 1 and 4 October 1996 the Katowice Regional Court held hearings. Subsequently, it requested an expert opinion from the Wrocław Clinical Hospital. The opinion was submitted on 18 December 1996. 24.  Between November 1996 and August 1998 no hearings were held. 25.  On 11 September and 4 December 1998 the trial court held hearings. Between 3 March and 29 September 1999 the proceedings were stayed. 26.  On 29 September 1999 the trial court held a hearing. 27.  On 2 October 2000 the expert opinion prepared by Mr E.W. was submitted to the court. 28.  Between October 1999 and October 2000 no hearings were held. At the hearing held on 21 November 2000 the court heard the expert witness Mr E.W. 29.  The hearing held on 20 December 2000 was adjourned until 6 March 2001. 30.  On 6 March 2001 the court decided that it would deliver a judgment on 20 March 2001. However, on the latter date the court resumed the proceedings and ordered a ninth expert opinion. 31.  On 23 October 2001 a hearing took place before the trial court. 32.  On 6 November 2001 the Katowice Regional Court gave a judgment. The trial court established that the applicant’s surgery in 1988 had been carried out according to medical standards at the material time and dismissed allegations of medical malpractice on the part of the doctor who had performed it. In the court’s opinion the deterioration of the applicant’s health was caused by a rare post-surgery complication aggravated by his illness from which he had been suffering prior to the surgery. Despite finding the defendant not liable, the court established that the applicant sustained damage in connection with the surgery and found it justifiable to award him PLN 50,000 in compensation. The applicant was also awarded a monthly allowance of PLN 100, which in the court’s opinion would compensate his increased needs.
The court dismissed the remaining part of the applicant’s action, in particular, relating to the pecuniary damage sought by him. In this respect the court found that the applicant’s breakdown of costs of special eye‑care products, lenses and other medicaments was completely unreliable and that his treatment abroad was unjustified since he could have been treated in Poland. The court also dismissed the part of his action relating to finding the defendant liable for any future deterioration of his health. 33.  On 18 January 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. He complained, inter alia, that in spite of the fact that many expert opinions from different medical centres in Poland had been taken, the trial court had based its findings solely on the expert opinion of Mr E.W., who was a colleague of the doctor who had performed the surgery and worked in the same city. 34.  On 8 May 2002 the Katowice Regional Court issued a decision in which it declared final the part of its judgment of 6 November 2001 concerning the amount of compensation. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 35.  The proceedings following his appeals against the Katowice Regional Court’s judgment of 6 November 2001 and the decision of 8 May 2002 are pending before Katowice Court of Appeal.