FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 21823/12
Mirosław STASIK
against Poland
lodged on 4 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mirosław Stasik, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Sulejówek.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In April 2007 the applicant’s wife left the matrimonial home and moved to Zakopane with her and the applicant’s son M. born on 1 July 2004.
On 29 August 2008 she brought an action for separation before the Siedlce District Court. Shortly afterwards the applicant filed for divorce. The cases were subsequently joined and on 25 May 2009 transferred to the Siedlce Regional Court which had jurisdiction to examine the divorce case.
On 3 September 2008 the Zakopane District Court gave an interlocutory decision regulating issues of access to M. during the divorce proceedings. It observed that the applicant had submitted that July 2008 the mother had left Zakopane without the applicant’s consent and without informing him. The court held that the applicant was allowed to visit the child at the mother’s home and in her presence on every first and third Saturday of each month from 2 to 7 p.m. The court obliged the mother to respect the access arrangements. The court noted that the divorce proceedings were pending and that the applicant had difficulties in obtaining an effective contact with his son.
The first hearing in the divorce case was held before the Siedlce Regional Court on 30 June 2009.
On an unspecified later date the applicant’s wife moved to Warsaw.
On 28 April 2009 the Warszawa-Wola District Court imposed on the mother a fine in the amount of PLN 500 for her failure to respect the decision of 3 September 2008.
On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant’s wife moved to Poznań.
On 29 December 2009 the Siedlce Regional Court issued an interlocutory decision giving the applicant a right to talk to the child on the phone on every Wednesday and Friday between 6.30 and 7.30 p.m. The mother was obliged not to prevent the child from talking to his father.
On 21 July 2010 the Siedlce Regional Court gave another interlocutory decision regulating access to the applicant’s son pending the divorce judgment.
The applicant was allowed to visit the child at the mother’s home and in her presence on every second and fourth Saturday of the month between 10 a.m. on Saturday and 7 p.m. on Sunday. He was further authorised to spend one day during every Christmas and Easter with the boy and also to take him for one week during the winter holidays and for two weeks during the summer holidays.
On 30 December 2010 the applicant requested the Family Division of the Poznań District Court to assist him in the effective enforcement of the access rights set out by the access decisions. He submitted that the mother did not respect his access rights.
On 8 August 2011 the expert of the Family Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek diagnostyczno‑konsultacyjny) prepared, for the purposes of the divorce proceedings, an opinion on the situation of the family. It recommended that the decision given in July 2010 should remain in force and should be respected. The child did not have any emotional difficulties in having contacts with his father, but it was well aware that the mother reacted to these contacts negatively and he wanted to obtain her approval.
On 5 October 2011 the applicant submitted a complaint about a breach of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He submitted, in particular, that the last hearing in the divorce proceedings had been held in July 2010 and that the court was helpless in the face of his wife’s efforts to prolong the proceedings.
On 9 November 2011 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the divorce proceedings. It acknowledged that the proceedings had been pending since August 2008, but was of the view that their length had essentially been caused by the defendant’s attitude, while the court could be held responsible only for its own conduct. Both parties had repeatedly been submitting numerous pleadings and motions which the court was obliged to examine. No delays on the part of the court in examining these motions had been established. The parties had appealed against various interlocutory decisions on six occasions. Further, as a result of the attitude of both parties the issue of access to the child had become the main problem in the case. This had further prolonged the proceedings.
On 6 December 2011 the Poznań-Nowe Miasto and Wilda District Court examined the applicant’s application for a penalty to be imposed on the boy’s mother for her failure to comply with the decisions on the applicant’s access rights, submitted on 30 December 2010. The court noted that the mother had failed to respect the court’s decision concerning the telephone contacts between the applicant and his son. The court had no doubts that the mother had failed to respect the access arrangements set out in previous relevant decisions. Her reliance on the child’s best interest was ill-conceived as it had already been taken into consideration by the court which had determined the access arrangements. Her own negative attitude regarding the execution of the access arrangements had influenced the child’s approach to his father. It was the mother’s responsibility to see to it that the contact decisions were properly executed. At the same time the court noted that the father’s behaviour was inappropriate in that he failed to visit his son regularly on Saturdays.
The court fixed a fourteen-day time-limit for the mother to allow the applicant access to M. on the terms set out by the interlocutory decision given in July 2010. It further held that she was to pay a fine of PLN 500 in case of continued failure to comply with the decision concerning the telephone contacts and PLN 1,000 in respect of the decision concerning personal contacts between the applicant and his son.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the divorce proceedings in his case.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he has been unable, for a long time, to enforce the access decision as a result of the mother’s persistent defiance and that the authorities were unable to offer effective assistance to him. He further invokes Article 13 of the Convention.
The applicant complains under Article 12 of the Convention that owing to the lengthy divorce proceedings he was not able to remarry.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a failure by the State to comply with its positive obligations to secure the applicant’s right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the failure to secure the applicant’s access to his child (see, e.g., Pawlik v. Poland, no. 11638/02, §§ 42 - 47, 19 June 2007; Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, 23 June 2005)?
2. Has the length of the proceedings in the applicant’s divorce case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy