FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43766/98
by Jolanta and Bogusław SCHRAMM
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 March 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
andMrS. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 June 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Bogusław Schramm and Jolanta Schramm, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1957 and 1960, respectively, and live in Poznań. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Ciesielski, a lawyer practising in Poznań.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:
In 1997 the Poznań District Court instituted ex officio, custody proceedings against the applicants upon an information of a social assistance institution about the alleged ill-treatment of their two daughters. On 9 May 1997 the court gave a decision on the basis of which the children were taken into public care. The custody rights of the applicants were restricted in such a manner that they were allowed to visit their children only a few times a year.
The applicants lodged an appeal against that decision which was upheld by the Poznań Regional Court on 31 October 1997.
On an unspecified date during the proceedings regarding the limitation of custody rights of the applicants, an eviction claim was brought against them by the local housing administration before the District Court. By virtue of a decision issued in 1997, the District Court dismissed this claim.
Apparently, as a result of a later decision of 14 February 1998, the children returned to the applicants.
On 17 September 1998 the children were again taken away to a custody institution.
On 10 November 1998, the Poznań District Court changed the decision concerning the restriction of the custody rights. It granted full parental rights to the father of the children, whereas the mother’s rights remained restricted.
Subsequently, the father applied several times to the District Court for a permission to have his children back for holidays. He was refused on the ground that it was too early for the applicants to see their children. After seven months of continuous efforts the applicants obtained a permission to have their children for Easter holidays.
In 1999 the applicants again applied several times to the District Court for a permission to have their children back for holidays. The court refused on unspecified grounds.
On 27 October 2000, as a result of further eviction proceedings against the applicants, they were evicted from their apartment. Apparently, these proceedings were instituted by an administrator of the applicant’s apartment on the ground that they had not been conferred with a legal title to it.
On 29 January 2001 the applicants were granted a social apartment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain in substance under Article 8 of Convention that they cannot have access to their children and that their parental rights were restricted. They submit in particular that they were deprived of a fair hearing before the Poznań District Court. The applicants complain that, during the proceedings, the court did not consider opinions of persons, such as the teacher and the priest, who were in close relationship with the children, and that in deciding about restrictions of the parental power, the court disregarded any objective circumstances of this case. The applicants submit that the court based its decision on testimony of the neighbours notwithstanding that the applicants’ relationship with the neighbours were rather tense due to a different political orientation of the applicants. The applicants allege that the courts were biased and superficial in the assessment of evidence.
The applicants further complains that on numerous occasions the Poznań District Court refused them permission to visit their children or to have them for holidays, and that no reasonable grounds were given in order to justify such refusals.
Moreover, the applicants complain that the District Court refused to confirm their legal title to the apartment and that in consequence they were evicted.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicants’ representative failed to submit within the time-limit his reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 21 March 2002. A further time-limit was fixed for him for doing so, to no avail.
It is also noted that the applicants were granted legal aid by a decision of 12 April 2002. However, the subsequent formalities necessary for pursuing the legal aid proceedings were not complied with by the applicants’ representative.
By a registered letter of 14 November and by a further letter of 17 December 2002 the Registry reminded the applicants’ representative that the failure to reply to the Government’s observations and to pursue the legal aid procedure could lead to the conclusion that the applicants did not intend to pursue the application, and advised him that it might result in a decision to strike the application out of the list of cases. The applicants’ representative submitted neither his reply to the Government’s observations nor the documents concerning legal aid.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend pursuing their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and it finds no reasons of general interest concerning respect for human rights, within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1, which would require the continued examination of the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy