GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT 11 it was lodged. It is therefore not possible [in the course of the present proceedings] to determine such complicated issues (which involve problems falling within the sphere of international relations). It is, however, possible to assume, for the purposes of making a ruling in these proceedings, that the nationality of an individual is a matter of personal choice; moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that the original inhabitants of Silesia constitute a minority in Upper Silesia – at least for anyone who has ever spent some time in this region and has been willing to perceive this fact. After all, the authorities, although they 'rend their garments' [sic] complaining that the applicants dare establish an association, do not contest the fact that [the Silesians] are an ethnic minority. In view of the foregoing, this Court, finding that the provisional management committee has complied with the requirements of sections 8(4), 12 and 16 read in conjunction with section 13(2) of the Law on associations and Article 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holds as in the operative part of the decision.” 2. The appeal proceedings 31. On 2 July 1997 the Governor of Katowice lodged an appeal with the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), asking that the first-instance decision be quashed, that the case be remitted to the court of first instance, and that expert evidence be obtained in order to determine the meaning of the terms “nation” and “national minority”. In his appeal, he alleged that the court of first instance had violated sections 1(1) and 2 of the Law on associations and unspecified provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant grounds of the appeal read as follows: “[The court of first instance] formally recognised and legally sanctioned the existence of a distinct Silesian nation constituting a 'Silesian national minority'. In our opinion, such an important and unprecedented ruling, which is of international significance, could not and should not be given without defining the concepts of 'nation' and 'national minority'. The Regional Court, leaving this issue aside – merely because of certain statutory time-limits – simplified the proceedings in an unacceptable manner. This led, in itself, to a failure on the part of the court to establish all the circumstances relevant to the outcome of the case and, furthermore, provided a sufficient basis for this appeal. The appellant admits that Polish law does not define the terms 'nation' and 'national minority'. This, however, does not justify the conclusion of the Regional Court that 'the nationality of an individual is a matter of personal choice'. The appellant does not contest the right of a person to decide freely to belong to a national minority; however, a precondition for making such a choice is the existence of a 'nation' with which that person identifies himself. The decision appealed against proclaims the opinion that the subjective feelings of the person concerned suffice for the purposes of creating a 'nation' or a 'nationality'. Having regard to the potential social repercussions of such an approach, it is not possible to agree with it. In these circumstances, prior to making any decision on the registration of the 'Union of People of Silesian Nationality', it is necessary to determine whether a