CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 15 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 72257/12 Leszek PILAWA against Poland lodged on 8 November 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Leszek Pilawa, is a Polish national, who was born in 1956. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant served a prison sentence. On 13 December 2011 he was served with a divorce petition which had been lodged with the Opole Regional Court. He claims to have filed a submission afterwards ( odpowiedź na pozew ) together with a request to have a legal-aid lawyer assigned to the case. On 25 January 2012 the first hearing was held. On the same date the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid. On 13 February 2012 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against that decision. The courts found that the case was not complex and the applicant could effectively represent himself in person. The appellate court noted that the fact that the applicant was serving a prison sentence did not affect this view, given that he was able to submit pleadings to the court. It further observed that the applicant’s reply to the divorce petition had been exhaustively and competently argued by him. On 9 March 2012 the Opole Regional Court granted the divorce petition, held that the applicant was at fault for breakdown of the marriage, divested him of his parental authority, prohibited the applicant from having contact with his three children and ordered his eviction under Article 58 § 2 of the Family and Custody Code, having regard to previous criminal proceedings against him concerning allegations of ill-treatment of his family. The applicant filed an appeal against that judgment. On 25 April 2012 the Opole Regional Court summoned him to submit a double copy of the appeal within seven days, on pain of his appeal being rejected. In his reply the applicant explained that he could not submit a copy as the only original he had had been submitted to the court. He could not ask for a photocopy to be made for him and could not copy it by hand. He stated that he only had his notes on the case. On 4 June 2012 the Opole Regional Court rejected his appeal for failure to submit a copy of his appeal within the prescribed time-limit. On 14 June 2012 the applicant appealed. On 22 June 2012 the Opole Regional Court summoned the applicant to rectify formal shortcomings of his appeal of 14 June 2012 by specifying the shortcomings of the contested procedural decision and his complaints, and by submitting a copy of his appeal. Apparently, the applicant submitted required copies. On 27 August 2012 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the decision to reject his appeal against the judgment on the merits of his divorce case. The court found that the applicant had failed to submit a copy of his appeal against the judgment within the prescribed time-limit of seven days. It noted his argument that he could not submit a copy as the only original he had had been submitted to the court. In the absence of the original, he could not ask for a photocopy to be made for him and could not copy it by hand. The court went on to state that the form of a copy was of no legal significance; it was essential that the copy reflected the content of the original pleadings, even if it was not identical verbatim . B.     Relevant domestic law Article 128 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party to civil proceedings should submit multiple copies of his or her pleadings for the purposes of their service on the court and the parties to the proceedings. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was deprived of effective access to the appellate court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to a court as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil limb to challenge the first-instance judgment in the divorce proceedings?