CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sF95D5525 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s43D33B2F { width:21.24pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .sE1794090 { width:13.92pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s90ED8920 { width:5.95pt; display:inline-block } .sADBF8857 { width:13.27pt; display:inline-block } .s57946AA6 { width:25.28pt; display:inline-block } .s9EAB97BC { width:11.94pt; display:inline-block } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s85187FF { width:10.21pt; display:inline-block } .s73FDC7C0 { width:206.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 76299/01 by Sławomir WRÓBLEWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   June 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,     Mr   M. Pellonpää ,     Mrs   E. Palm ,     Mrs   V. Strážnická ,     Mr   R. Maruste ,     Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,     Mr   L. Garlicki , judges and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sławomir Wróblewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Warszawa. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 November 1993 the applicant filed a divorce petition with the Warsaw Regional Court. On 28 March 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court held the first hearing in this case. On an unspecified date following this hearing, the Warsaw Regional Court, by way of interim order, ruled on the amount of alimony to be paid for the benefit of the applicant’s daughter, born in 1981. On 9 May 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court issued an interim order determining the way the applicant and his wife should use their house pending proceedings. At the hearing of 27 June 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court heard witnesses. On 8 July 1994 the applicant’s attorney filed pleadings in which he requested the Warsaw Regional Court to admit evidence from a court expert in sexology. By another interim order dated 30 August 1994, the Warsaw Regional Court prohibited the applicant from introducing third persons into his family house and registering them as residents. This decision was taken after the applicant’s new partner, the mother of his two children (born in 1990 and 1994 respectively), had moved in. On 29 December 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal altered the decision finding that the applicant could not be prevented from registering as residents his own children and their mother. On 20 November 1995 the court collected further evidence. On 5 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court increased the amount of alimony payable to the applicant’s eldest daughter. Upon both parties appeal, the amount was again increased by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 25 July 1996. On 27 February 1996 the applicant requested the court to supplement the minutes of the hearing of 20 November 1995. This was refused by the President of the Warsaw Regional Court as the request was out of time. The applicant’s further appeal was also dismissed. At the hearing of 13 January 1997, the Warsaw Regional Court   heard the teacher of the applicant’s daughter as a witness. The applicant’s attorney renewed his evidence motion (filed previously in pleadings dated 8   July 1994) to appoint a court expert in sexology. At the hearing the Court decided to admit evidence from experts in sexology and from experts from the Family Diagnostics Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno ‑ Konsultacyjny) . The expert in sexology delivered his report on 13 March 1998. At the hearing of 23 March 1998 the parties commented on the experts’ reports. Apparently further expert evidence was requested. The last hearing before the first instance court was held on 12 May 1999. The parties presented their final submissions and the Warsaw Regional Court delivered its judgment on 26 May 1999.   The Warsaw Regional Court decided to dissolve the marriage, finding that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown. It further vested custody rights over their daughter in the applicant’s former wife and fixed a new amount of alimony to be paid by the applicant. Both parties filed appeals against the Warsaw Regional Court judgment. On an unspecified date, the applicant inspected his case-file and concluded that the minutes from the court hearing did not reflect adequately what had been said in the court room. On 10 October 1999 the applicant requested rectification of the minutes from several hearings before the first instance court. This was refused by the President of the Warsaw Regional Court as the request was out of time. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was left unexamined due to “lack of full composition of the court”. The applicant’s further appeal was rejected as no appeal laid against secondary decisions which do not determine the merits of the case and do not fall within categories enumerated by the Code of Civil Procedure. Yet another appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 8 August 2000. On 8 August 2000 the Warsaw Court   dismissed both parties’ appeals against the judgment of 26 May 1999 and quashed ex-officio rulings in respect of the child who had in the meantime reached majority. According to the applicant’s submissions, the judgment was served on him on 8   November 2000. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of his divorce proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. The applicant further complains that he has not received a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 the Convention. In particular, he submits that the court did not allow him to speak freely during the hearings, refused to record his statements and deliberately favoured the other party to the proceedings. He alleges that the employees of the court’s registry were involved in forgery of documents. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains about the excessive length of the divorce proceedings. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   2. The applicant also complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about various aspects of unfairness in the course of divorce proceedings. Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Court observes that the applicant failed to file a cassation appeal against the Warsaw Court’s of Appeal judgment of 8 August 2000. He has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of divorce proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Michael O’B oyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President