CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sA945683B { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:0.2pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BB2FE02 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s36EA9DD { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7D2D15E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s40F48892 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s15F9C952 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE015B501 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s69CC9BC3 { width:172.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s863EC76E { width:219.61pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF MATRAKAS AND OTHERS v. POLAND AND GREECE   (Application no. 47268/06)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   7 November 2013     FINAL   07/02/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Matrakas and Others v. Poland and Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President ,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 47268/06) against the Republic of Poland and the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Polish nationals, Mr   Dawid Matrakas (“the first applicant”), Mr Łukasz Mitroudis (“the second applicant”) and their mother, Ms Beata Kołodziej (“the third applicant”) on 10 November 2006. On 19 October 2009 the applicants’ lawyer informed the Court that the third applicant changed her name to Ms   Beata Mitroudis. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Kraków. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   J.   Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by   Ms   J.   Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Greek Government were represented by their Agent’s Delegates, Ms K.   Paraskevopoulou, Mr I.   Bakopoulous and Ms   Z.   Chatzipavlou, of the State Legal Council. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by Poland and Greece on account of the lack of adequate assistance in the proceedings concerning recovery of maintenance. 4.     On 9 September 2011 the application was communicated to the Polish and Greek Governments. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants were born in 1987, 1992 and 1968 respectively. They all live in Kraków. A.     Proceedings under the New York Convention for the recovery of maintenance in respect of the first applicant 6.     On an unspecified date in 1988 the first applicant, represented by   the   third applicant, filed with the Kraków Regional Court an application under the New York Convention of 20   June   1956 on   the   Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (“the   New   York   Convention”) for the recovery of maintenance from his father, P.M., a Greek national. The first applicant requested that the Greek authorities institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and enforce any decision that might be given by the Greek courts. 7.     On 23   March   1988 the Kraków Regional Court, acting as the   Transmitting Agency under the New   York   Convention, transmitted the application to the Greek Ministry of Justice (“the Greek Ministry”), which acted as the Receiving Agency. 8.     On 13   July   1988 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the debtor had been summoned but had failed to appear, and that the   case had been referred to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action. 9.     On 5   August   1989 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry requesting information about the progress in the recovery of   the   maintenance. It appears that in reply the Greek Ministry resent its letter of 13 July 1988. 10.     On 22   January   1990, in response to the query from the Kraków Regional Court, the third applicant informed the court that the first applicant had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor. 11.     On 29   January   1990 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Ministry of   Foreign Affairs to intervene in the case. The Ministry requested the assistance of the Polish Embassy in Athens. 12.     On 3   September   1990 the third applicant and P.M. signed an agreement stipulating that P.M. would pay 10,000 Greek drachmas (29.35   EUR) in maintenance to the first applicant monthly for a period of two years. 13.     On 1 October 1990 the third applicant again informed the Kraków Regional Court that she had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor. 14.     On 2   November   1990, upon a request filed by the first applicant, the   Kraków Regional Court once again requested the Polish Ministry of   Foreign Affairs to intervene in the proceedings. 15.     On 19   December   1990 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the third applicant had hired a Greek lawyer to act in the divorce and   maintenance proceedings. In the lawyer’s opinion, there were good prospects of reaching a friendly settlement in the case. Consequently, the Greek Ministry considered that its   intervention at that point was not required. However, it would continue to monitor the situation and inform the   Kraków Regional Court of any further developments. The applicant contested the Greek Government’s assertion that she had hired a Greek lawyer. 16.     On 19   November   1992 P.M. acknowledged before a notary his intention to pay 10,000 Greek drachmas in monthly maintenance to the first applicant until he reached the age of 18. He also promised to pay 260,000   drachmas (763.02 EUR) for the period up to 31   December   1992. The monthly maintenance payments were to be deposited on an account at the National Bank of Greece. This notarial deed was declared enforceable. 17.     On 17   February   1993 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that P.M. had acknowledged his obligation to pay maintenance to the first applicant. It requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide it with several additional documents, including the first applicant’s birth certificate and a certificate of his residence, in   order for it to proceed with the transfer of the maintenance to Poland. 18.     On 15   November   1993 the Kraków Regional Court sent the requested documents to the Greek Ministry. 19.     The Greek Ministry transmitted the requested documents to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace on 1 December 1993. On 24 November 1994 that authority informed the Greek Ministry that the debtor had deposited 260,000 drachmas on a bank account on 23 November 1992. On the same date the said authority requested the debtor to inform it whether he had made any further payments to the account. The debtor replied that he had been making agreed monthly payments to the account and produced documentary evidence to this effect. 20.     In the course of divorce proceedings instituted by the third applicant against P.M., on 7   March   1994 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court delivered an interim order awarding maintenance payments by P.M. to the first applicant. The court noted that P.M.’s place of residence was unknown. On 5 January 1995 the court increased the amount of maintenance payments. 21.     On 19   July   and 28   September   1994 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry requesting it   to provide information about the progress of the proceedings. It appears that no reply was received to these letters. On 13   May   1996 the Kraków Regional Court sent another request for information. It noted that on 2 February 1995 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance had issued a divorce decree in default, dissolving the third applicant’s marriage to P.M. 22.     On 11   July   1996 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the first applicant had received a payment of 540,000 drachmas (1,584.74 EUR) in March 1995. According to the agreement between the   parties, this amount was supposed to cover the maintenance due for   the   period from 1   October   1990 to 31   March   1995. 23.     On 19 September 1996 the Kraków Regional Court informed the third applicant about the letter of 11 July 1996 and requested her to submit comments. On 31   December   1996 the third applicant informed the court that the amount of 540,000 drachmas covered only the period between 1987 and 1990 and that she intended to lodge a claim for non-received maintenance from 1987 to 1996. 24.     On 17   June   1997 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court gave a judgment in default, increasing the amount of the maintenance payments to be made to the first applicant by P.M. 25.     On 5   May   1998 the Kraków Regional Court again requested assistance from the Greek Ministry. The court informed the Greek Ministry of the debtor’s single payment made in March 1995. The court also informed the Greek Ministry that three judgments in default had so far been given in Poland ordering P.M. to pay maintenance, and that on the basis of   those judgments the first applicant had been able to receive substitute maintenance from the “Maintenance Fund” ( Fundusz Alimentacyjny). In case of the lack of reaction from the debtor, the third applicant would have to request the enforcement of the Polish judgments in Greece on the basis of the bilateral agreement. No reply was received from the Greek authorities to that letter. 26.     On 25   June   1999 the Kraków Regional Court informed the third applicant that in order to recover the maintenance due to the first applicant it was necessary for   her to file a request with the Kraków District Court for the recognition and the enforcement in Greece of the Polish judgments awarding the   maintenance, on the basis of the Agreement of 24   October   1979 between the Polish People’s Republic and the Hellenic Republic on legal cooperation in   civil and criminal matters (“the 1979   Agreement”). The first applicant filed such a request on 6   July   1999. 27.     On 16   November   1999 the Kraków Regional Court requested the   assistance of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 28.     On 18   April   2000 the Polish Ministry of Justice requested the Greek Ministry to assist the first applicant in obtaining the recognition and enforcement in Greece of the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court’s judgment in default of 17   June   1997. 29.     By a letter of 17   July   2000, the Greek Ministry informed the Polish Ministry of Justice that it refused to proceed with the request for   the   recognition and enforcement of the Polish judgment in question. The   Greek Ministry explained that the request could not be allowed due to Article 26 (d) of the 1979 Agreement. This provision stipulated that a request for recognition and enforcement could be refused in Greece if the Greek courts had the sole jurisdiction to examine the matter. Consequently, the Greek Ministry returned the request, along with the entire case file, to the Polish Ministry of Justice. 30.     On 22   March   2001 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry noting the Greek Ministry’s position expressed in its earlier letter and requesting it to urgently proceed with the recovery of the maintenance due to the first applicant in accordance with   the   New   York Convention. 31.     On 9   May   2001 the Greek Ministry responded by reasserting the position expressed in its letter of 17   July   2000 and confirming that the   entire case file had been returned to the Polish Ministry of   Justice on 17   July   2000. 32.     On 15   October   2001 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court gave another judgment in default increasing the amount of the maintenance payments to the first applicant. 33.     On 14   February   2002 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry of Justice to provide it with information as to the progress of   the proceedings and as to the prospects of a successful recovery of   maintenance. On 2   July   2002 the Greek Ministry replied by re-sending their letter of 9   May   2001. 34.     On 2   August   2002 the Kraków Regional Court requested the   International Law Department of the Polish Ministry of Justice (“the International Law Department”) to provide it with legal advice as to the further steps necessary to recover the maintenance due to   the   first applicant. 35.     On 25   October   2002 the International Law Department advised the   Kraków Regional Court to file a new request with the Greek authorities under the New York Convention. It observed that the prospects of   a   successful recovery of the maintenance on the basis of the request filed in   1988 were poor, given the lack of a proper response from the Greek authorities. It further informed the Kraków Regional Court that there appeared to be no obstacles to the first applicant requesting the recognition and enforcement of the Kraków District Court’s judgment given on 15   October   2001 directly before Greek courts, on the basis of the Lugano Convention of 16   September   1988 on Jurisdiction and the   Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“the Lugano Convention”) provided that the conditions specified in that convention had been fulfilled. 36.     On 6   January   2004 the Kraków-Podgórze District Court delivered yet another judgment in default, again increasing the amount of the maintenance due to   the   first applicant. 37.     On 11   August   2004 the Kraków Regional Court sent to the Greek authorities a new request filed by the first applicant under the New York Convention, asking the Greek authorities to recover maintenance in   respect of the period from April   1994 onwards. In the same letter, the   Kraków Regional Court also requested the Greek authorities to   recognise and enforce the Polish judgment of 6   January   2004 under the   Lugano Convention. 38.     On 10   November   2004 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that its request for the recovery of maintenance under the   New York Convention could not be accepted, because under Article   6   (3) of that convention only Greek private international law was applicable. Consequently, the   Polish court which had given the judgment awarding maintenance to the first applicant had had no jurisdiction to do so since at the time of filing the action the debtor had had his permanent residence in Greece. The Greek Ministry returned the entire request together with all attachments. 39.     On 6   December   2004 the Kraków Regional Court requested the   International Law Department to   provide it with a legal opinion as to the correctness of the Greek Ministry’s position. 40.     On 7   January   2005 the International Law Department stated that the position of the Greek Ministry was incorrect and that the   Lugano Convention, which was binding on both Poland and Greece, did not allow Greece to invoke the sole jurisdiction of the Greek courts as   an   obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of Polish judgments. It noted that the Lugano Convention replaced the 1979 Agreement. The International Law Department further noted that it would perhaps be quicker for the first applicant to send a request for recognition and   enforcement under the Lugano Convention directly to the competent court in Thessaloniki. Alternatively, it advised the Kraków Regional Court to resubmit its request to the Greek Ministry of Justice. 41.     On 6   May   2005 the Kraków Regional Court sent another request for   the recognition and enforcement in Greece of the judgment of   the   Kraków-Podgórze District Court of 6   January   2004 on the basis of   the   Lugano Convention. In the same letter, it reminded the Greek Ministry about the request lodged under the New York Convention and   requested the recovery of the maintenance due from the date of the first request filed in 1988. No reply to that request was received. Enquiries with the Polish postal service revealed that the letter had been served on the Greek Ministry on 21   June   2005. 42.     Meanwhile, on 23   August   2005 the Greek Ministry sent the first applicant’s file to the State Legal Council in order for them to proceed with the enforcement of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6   January   2004. On 1 September 2005 the State Legal Council transmitted the case to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace. 43.     On 22   December   2005 the Kraków Regional Court again sent a letter to the Greek Ministry of Justice. No reply to   that   letter was received. 44.     On 1   March   2006 the President of the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to intervene in the case. 45.     On 5   June 2006 the Greek Ministry asked the Kraków Regional Court for a certificate proving that P.M. had been informed of the request which had commenced the proceedings terminated by the judgment of 6   January   2004. Such a certificate was necessary to start recognition and enforcement proceedings on the basis of the Lugano Convention. 46.     On 16   August   2006 the Kraków Regional Court forwarded the requested documents to the Greek Ministry. 47.     On various dates in 2007, at the request of the third applicant, the Kraków Regional Court attested that she had not received any maintenance payments due to the first applicant. The third applicant needed the confirmation to receive substitute maintenance. 48.     On 26   January   2007 the Greek authorities lodged a request for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of 6   January   2004 with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance. The first hearing, scheduled for 24   April   2007, was adjourned until 18   September   2007. 49.     On 23   April   2007 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Greek Ministry to provide it with further information as to the progress of   the proceedings. On 26   July   2007 the Greek Ministry replied that the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance would examine the case on 18   September 2007. 50.     The hearing set for 18   September   2007 was adjourned owing to elections. Upon a request from the Greek authorities a further hearing was scheduled for 14   December   2007. It was then postponed on account of the friendly-settlement negotiations between the parties. 51.     On 28   November   2007 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Greek Ministry to inform it of the results of the court hearing. 52.     On 9   May   2008 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that on 21   March   2008 the third applicant had reached an agreement with P.M. Under the terms of that agreement P.M. was to pay 9,700   euros to the first applicant as a final settlement of the sums of maintenance awarded by the Polish court up to 18   August   2005. The third applicant declared that she would withdraw her request to enforce the judgment of 6 January 2004. 53.     On 8   June   2008 the third applicant declared that P.M. had paid his debts up to 2005 but had not made any payments for the period between 2005 and 2008, and that he was not paying the current instalments. 54.     On 14   September   2008 the third applicant declared that P.M. had paid part of his debt for the period between 2005 and 2008 (EUR   3,000) but he had not paid the interest. 55.     On 16   January   2009 the third applicant informed the Kraków Regional Court that the case could be closed. On 12   February   2009 the case was closed by the Kraków Regional Court. The latter court informed the Greek Ministry that the recovery proceedings under the New York Convention were terminated. B.     Proceedings instituted in Poland under the 2004 Act by the first applicant 56.     On 29   August   2007 the first applicant filed a complaint under the   Law   of   17   June   2004 on complaints concerning a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004   Act”). He alleged that the length of   the   proceedings for the recovery of maintenance instituted in 1988 on   his   behalf by his mother on the basis of the New York Convention had been excessive. He also claimed compensation in the amount of   10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant explained that he had not been able to   recover any maintenance from his father, despite the fact that several judgments awarding maintenance had been handed down in Poland and   despite the Kraków Regional Court’s repeated attempts to intervene with the Greek authorities. 57.     On 9   October   2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal rejected the   applicant’s complaint. It recalled that a mere reference to the overall duration of the proceedings did not suffice for a conclusion that their length had been excessive and that the applicant had failed to sufficiently specify the   omissions or delays attributable to the lower court. It further observed that, in any event, the Regional Court’s role as   the   Transmitting Agency in the impugned proceedings under the   New York   Convention had been limited solely to carrying out technical and organisational tasks, which the Regional Court had duly done. C.     Proceedings for the recovery of the maintenance due to the second applicant 58.     On 6   January   2004 Y.M., a Greek national, was declared the father of the second applicant by the Kraków-Podgórze District Court. He was further ordered to pay monthly maintenance in the amount of PLN   900. 59.     On 26   April   2005 the second applicant, represented by his mother, filed with the Kraków Regional Court a request for the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. under the New York Convention. He requested that the   Greek authorities secure a friendly settlement of the case or, alternatively, institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the   maintenance and enforce any judgment that might be given in this connection by the Greek courts. 60.     By a letter of 12   May 2005 the Kraków Regional Court asked the applicant to rectify her request, in particular by attaching the required documents. 61.     On 7   June   2005 the Kraków Regional Court, acting as the Transmitting Agency under the New York Convention, transferred the second applicant’s request to the Greek Ministry, acting as the Receiving Agency. 62.     On 10   November   2005 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to confirm reception of the application filed by the second applicant. It appears that there was no response to that request. Enquiries with the Polish postal service revealed that the request had been served on the Greek Ministry on 28   July   2005. 63.     On 10 November 2005 the Kraków Regional Court issued a certificate for the third applicant attesting that she had not received any maintenance payments due to the second applicant. The certificate was necessary to claim substitute maintenance from the Maintenance Fund. 64.     On 1   March   2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the assistance of   the Polish Embassy in Athens. In reply, on 17   May   2006 the Polish Embassy informed the Kraków Regional Court that the Greek Ministry had instituted proceedings for   the   recovery of the maintenance due to the second applicant. The Embassy further informed the court that a hearing before the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance, initially scheduled for 24   March   2006, had been rescheduled for 26   May   2006. 65.     On 28   August   2006 and 23   April   2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to inform it of the outcome of the hearing before the Thessaloniki court. 66.     On 22 January and 23   April   2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to enquire with the Greek authorities about the progress of the proceedings. 67.     On 18   September   2007 the Kraków Regional Court sent the file concerning the second applicant’s case to the International Law Department, requesting its assistance. 68.     On 16   November   2007 the International Law Department sent the case file back to the Kraków Regional Court, informing it that the second applicant should address the Greek authorities directly with a request to be provided with a copy of the decision that had apparently been given in his case by   the   Greek court. On 29   November   2007 the Kraków Regional Court forwarded the   International Law Department’s letter to the third applicant. 69.     On 4   April   2008 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to inform it about any further steps taken with a view to recovering the   maintenance. It sent again a copy of the original request for the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. and requested the Greek Ministry’s assistance as Y.M. had not been paying maintenance due to the second applicant since 1995. On the same day, the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to intervene in the case. 70.     On 20   May   2008 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that they had already sent to it the judgment of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance of 23   April   2007 (see paragraph 97 below). They also requested the   Kraków Regional Court to provide them with additional information as   to the defendant’s property, with a view to the enforcement of the judgment in   Greece. The Kraków Regional Court replied to the Greek Ministry that the judgment of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance given on 23   April   2007 in the third applicant’s case did not concern any maintenance payments in respect of the second applicant. Consequently, it requested the Greek Ministry to proceed with the recovery of the maintenance owed by Y.M. to the second applicant. 71.     In its response of 26   June   2008, the Greek Ministry informed the   Kraków Regional Court that the Polish judgment ordering Y.M. to pay maintenance to the second applicant was a judgment in   default given in Y.M.’s absence. Consequently, the Greek Ministry requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide it with documents proving that Y.M.’s rights as a defendant in the proceedings before the Polish courts had been respected, as required by Article   23   (b) of the 1979   Agreement. On 4   July   2008 the Kraków Regional Court forwarded the requested documents to the Greek Ministry. 72.     On 1 September 2008 the Greek Ministry transmitted the case to the State Legal Council as a competent authority to institute the proceedings in accordance with the New York Convention. Subsequently, the case was transmitted to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action. 73.     On 3   April   2009 the Greek Ministry, acting as the Receiving Agency, filed a claim with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance for the enforcement of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6   January   2004. 74.     On 11   December   2009 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance gave judgment, dismissing the claim. The court considered that the Ministry had no standing to file such a claim because the New York Convention did not apply to the case. It held that the Council Regulation 44/2001/EC was applicable to the case and that accordingly it was the second applicant who had standing to file a claim for enforcement. It is not clear whether the Ministry lodged an appeal against that judgment. 75.     Meanwhile, on 17   April   2008 the third applicant filed a claim with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance requesting the recognition and enforcement of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6   January   2004. The court gave judgment on 27   May   2009, dismissing the third applicant’s claim. It held that the defendant, Y.M., had not been correctly informed about the proceedings in Poland and therefore could not defend his interests in the proceedings. The court found that Y.M. had been served summons to appear at the hearing scheduled for 14 July 2003 only on 20 September 2003, i.e. after the hearing had taken place. The third applicant appealed. 76.     According to a document dated 1 December 2009 prepared by a judge of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court the rights of Y.M. had been fully respected in the proceedings leading to the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6 January 2004. The judge noted that the second applicant’s claim had been filed on 20 February 2003 and that the first hearing had been scheduled for 14 July 2003. The latter hearing was adjourned since Y.M. had failed to appear and the Kraków-Podgórze District Court had had no proof that the claim had been served on the defendant. After the court was notified that the claim had been served on Y.M. on 20 September 2003 it scheduled a hearing for 6 January 2004. On that date the Kraków-Podgórze District Court heard the case and delivered judgment in default. The judgment was translated and served on Y.M. on 21   September 2004. He was instructed that he could file an objection to the judgment in default within seven days from the date of the service but he did not react. 77.     A hearing before the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal was scheduled for 17   May   2010. However, that hearing was rescheduled owing to a bomb attack which had occurred in the court in Thessaloniki several days prior to that date. Another hearing in the case, scheduled for   8   November   2010, was also rescheduled, on account of the local elections due to take place from 3   to   12   November   2010. 78.     On 10   June   2011 the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal dismissed the third applicant’s appeal. It upheld the lower court finding that the Y.M.’s rights to participate in the proceedings and to defend his interests had not been respected. Accordingly, the recognition of the judgment in issue would have been contrary to the public order. 79.     It appears that the third applicant did not lodge an appeal with the Court of Cassation. 80.     On 17   April   2008 the third applicant also lodged an action with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance against Y.M. for maintenance on behalf of the second applicant. The proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of 6   January   2004. D.     Proceedings instituted in Poland under the 2004 Act by the second applicant 81.     On 18   July   2008 the second applicant, represented by his mother, filed a   complaint under the 2004   Act. He claimed that the   length of the proceedings for the recovery of maintenance instituted by   him on 29   April   2005 on the basis of the New York Convention had been excessive. He also claimed compensation in the amount of PLN   10,000. 82.     On 27   August   2008 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the   applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the second applicant had filed his application for recovery of maintenance under the New York Convention on 29   April   2005. It noted that the initial application had been incomplete and had had to be rectified by the second applicant before being transmitted to the Greek Ministry of Justice. The Court of   Appeal considered that the transmission of documents had been carried out without undue delay. It further considered that, in   the   proceedings under the New York Convention, the Kraków Regional Court had only acted as the Transmitting Agency and, as such, had had no   influence on the expeditiousness of the recovery of the maintenance by the Greek authorities. Moreover, the Court of Appeal found that the Regional Court, although it had not been required to do so by law, had on several occasions attempted to intervene in the proceedings by sending reminder letters to   the   Greek authorities and by soliciting the assistance of the Polish embassy in Athens. Consequently, the Court of Appeal considered that the   Regional Court could not be held responsible for the overall length of   the impugned proceedings and it dismissed the second applicant’s complaint, refusing to award him any compensation. E.     Proceedings instituted for the recognition and enforcement in   Greece of the Polish court’s judgment awarding maintenance to   the third applicant 83.     On 23   December   2002 the Kraków Regional Court issued a divorce decree in default, dissolving the third applicant’s marriage to a Greek national, Y.M., and ordering Y.M. to pay maintenance to her. 84.     On 24   February   2003 the third applicant lodged an application with the Kraków Regional Court for the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. under the New   York Convention. In her application, she requested the Greek authorities to secure a friendly settlement of the case or, alternatively, to   institute proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and   to   recognise and enforce the judgment of 23   December   2002. 85.     On 24 March 2003 the Kraków Regional Court asked the third applicant to rectify her request by attaching the required documents. On 18   August   2003 the court transmitted the   application to the Greek Ministry. 86.     On 25   November   2003 the Ministry of Justice sent the applicant’s file to the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance in order for it to proceed with enforcement of the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. The efforts to summon Y.M. proved unsuccessful. On 9 February 2004 the Greek Ministry transmitted the case-file to the State Legal Council with a view to instituting enforcement proceedings in accordance with the New York Convention. Subsequently, the case was referred to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action. 87.     Meanwhile, on 7 February 2004 the third applicant married S.K. According to the Polish Government, pursuant to Article 60 § 3 of the Polish Family and Custody Code, Y.M.’s obligation to pay maintenance to the third applicant ceased as a consequence of this act. The applicant contested this assertion of the Polish Government. 88.     On 23   April   2004   the Greek Ministry requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide it with proof that the summons had been served on Y.M. in the proceedings before the Kraków Regional Court. 89.     On 10   August   2004 the Kraków Regional Court sent the requested document to the Greek Ministry, observing that it had already been sent to it on 18   August   2003, together with the initial request for recovery of maintenance. 90.     On 20   October   2004 the Greek authorities brought an action against Y.M. before the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance with the aim of   obtaining the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of   the   Kraków Regional Court of 23   December   2002. 91.     On 24   January   2005 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance decided to adjourn the hearing in order to verify whether the matter had not already been the subject of another final judgment concerning the same parties. 92.     On 10   March   2005, 30   August   2005 and 12   January   2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to provide it with information as to the progress of the proceedings. It appears that no response was received to these enquiries. 93.     On 12   January   2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the assistance of the Polish Embassy in Athens. 94.     A hearing before the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance scheduled for   24   March   2006 was adjourned. A hearing took place on 26   May   2006. On 23 July 2006 the court decided to adjourn the hearing for the same reason as previously (see paragraph 91 above). The next hearing scheduled for 20   February   2007 was adjourned. The hearing took place on 9   March   2007. Twice in the course of the proceedings the Greek authorities lodged a request with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance for a hearing to be scheduled in the case. 95.     On 4   July   2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to provide it with information as to the outcome of the hearing before the   Thessaloniki court. Since no reply was received to   that   request, on 8   January   2007   the Kraków Regional Court requested the   Polish Embassy in Athens to enquire with the Greek authorities as to the outcome of the proceedings. 96.     On 12   February   2007 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court of the developments in the case. 97.     On 23   April   2007 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance gave a judgment recognising the Kraków Regional Court’s divorce verdict of 23   December   2002 as enforceable in Greece. On 4 July 2007 the Greek Ministry sent a copy of the judgment to the Kraków Regional Court. 98.     On 14 September 2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Ministry of Justice to provide it with legal advice as to the further steps necessary to recover the maintenance due to   the   third applicant. On 16   November 2007 the Polish Ministry suggested further cooperation with the Greek Ministry and underlined that the Regional Court acted only as a Transmitting Agency. 99.     On 29   November   2007 the Kraków Regional Court informed the third applicant that she should entrust the carrying out of the   enforcement proceedings in Greece to a Greek counsel. The court further informed her that the proceedings in her case would be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the enforcement proceedings in Greece. 100.     On 18   April   2008 a copy of the judgment of 23   April   2007 was served on Y.M., together with an order of payment for 36,332.96 EUR. 101.     On 20   May   2008 the Greek Ministry asked the Polish Ministry to provide information as regards Y.M.’s assets in Greece. In reply, the third applicant provided the information that Y.M.’s assets included three taverns in Chalastra and Thessaloniki, a house in Chalastra, a flat in Thessaloniki and several cars and motorcycles. 102.     On 12   June   2008 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that enforcement proceedings against Y.M. on the basis of   the   judgment of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance of 23   April   2007 had been initiated and that some property belonging to Y.M. would be seized and auctioned off. 103.     Subsequently, three auctions were organised in order to sell two of Y.M.’s apartments in Thessaloniki (on 17 September 2008, 14 January 2009 and 25 February 2009). However, this was to no avail, as there were no bidders at the auctions. 104.     On 3 April 2009 the Greek authorities requested the Thessaloniki Court of First