PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 1955/10) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Artur Babiarz (“the applicant”), on 15 December 2009.

The applicant was represented by Mr W. Osak, a lawyer practising in Lublin. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that his right to respect for family life and his right to marry and found a family had been breached.

On 3 June 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits. In addition, third‑party comments were received from the European Centre for Justice and Human Rights (Centre européen pour la justice et les droits de l’homme), which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Dębowa Kłoda.

In 1997 the applicant married R. In 2004 R. underwent infertility treatment so she could conceive a child with him.

In autumn 2004 the applicant met A.H. In January 2005 he moved out of the flat he had lived in with R.

On 31 October 2005 A.H. gave birth to their daughter, M.

On 25 September 2006 the applicant filed a petition for divorce. At first he requested a no-fault divorce. In his petition the applicant referred to various marital misunderstandings and quarrels for which he blamed the respondent. He admitted that he had moved out of the matrimonial home, but did not mention his involvement with a new partner.

At a hearing held on 15 November 2006 the applicant refused to undergo the mediation process provided for by divorce law. R. did not agree to a divorce, declared that she loved the applicant and asked the court to dismiss the divorce petition.

Subsequently, the applicant requested a divorce on fault‑based grounds.

During the proceedings thirteen witnesses were heard. Most of them were of the opinion that the marriage seemed happy until autumn 2004. Only the applicant’s mother, his two colleagues and his cousin recalled minor arguments between the spouses.

During the final hearing on 9 February 2009 the respondent reiterated her refusal to divorce.

On 17 February 2009 the Lublin Regional Court refused to grant the divorce to the applicant. The court held that he was the only person responsible for the breakdown of his marriage because he had failed to respect the obligation of fidelity. The court did not find it credible that problems had already begun within the first year of the marriage. It observed that until 2004 the applicant had not wanted children. In that year he had changed his mind. For that reason R. had undergone surgery, the operation having taken place in August 2004.

The marital situation had subsequently changed when the applicant had met A.H. He had no longer wished to have a child with his wife. The court noted contradictions between the testimony given by the applicant, who had referred to the alleged serious problems in marital life prior to 2004 on the one hand, and the decision to treat R.’s infertility in summer 2004 on the other. The respondent had been shocked by the applicant’s unfaithfulness and had been treated for depression since autumn 2004.

The court acknowledged that there had indeed been “a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown” within the meaning of Article 56 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code. Reconciliation was unlikely as the applicant had consistently rejected all attempts made by R. to reconcile their differences. Moreover, he had been in a relationship with A.H. for almost four years and had a child with her.

The court emphasised that under Article 56 § 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code, a divorce could not be granted if it had been requested by the party whose fault it was that the marriage had broken down, if the other party refused to consent and the refusal of the innocent party was not “contrary to the reasonable principles of social coexistence” (zasady współżycia społecznego) within the meaning of Article 5 of the Civil Code.

The court considered that R.’s refusal to divorce should be presumed to be compatible with those universally accepted principles. It referred to the case-law of the Supreme Court to the effect that a refusal of consent to a divorce was to be presumed to be compliant with those principles unless there were case-specific indications to the contrary. There was no indication that when refusing to give her consent R. had acted out of hatred, was motivated by vengeance, or simply wanted to vex the applicant. The court emphasised that she had repeatedly stated during the proceedings that she was ready to reconcile with him despite the fact that he had a child with another woman.

The court stressed that the duration of the applicant’s new relationship could not by itself be considered to be a sufficient reason for granting the divorce.

The applicant appealed against the judgment. He argued, inter alia, that the court had erred in holding that a spouse’s refusal to consent to a divorce could be disregarded only when it was of an abusive nature or was dictated by hostility towards the spouse seeking the divorce. The court should have examined the negative social consequences caused by continuing the formal existence of failed marriages. In his case, it had failed to do so.

On 16 June 2009 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

The applicant did not request to be served with the written grounds for the appellate judgment. The grounds were therefore not prepared.

The judgment was final, a cassation appeal against a divorce judgment not being available in law.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e1
001-170344_a4_em1
CODE
DIRECT
1955/10
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-170344_a4_e2
001-170344_a4_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
ETHNIC
insert
001-170344_a4_e3
001-170344_a4_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Polish national
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e4
001-170344_a4_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Artur Babiarz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e5
001-170344_a4_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
15 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e6
001-170344_a4_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr W. Osak
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e7
001-170344_a4_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Lublin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e8
001-170344_a4_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e9
001-170344_a4_em9
PERSON
NO_MASK
Ms J. Chrzanowska
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e10
001-170344_a4_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e11
001-170344_a4_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e12
001-170344_a4_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
European Centre for Justice and Human Rights (Centre européen pour la justice et les droits de l’homme)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e13
001-170344_a4_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1971
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e14
001-170344_a4_em14
LOC
QUASI
Dębowa Kłoda
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e15
001-170344_a4_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em16
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e17
001-170344_a4_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em18
PERSON
QUASI
R.
HEALTH
insert
001-170344_a4_e18
001-170344_a4_em19
MISC
NO_MASK
infertility treatment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e19
001-170344_a4_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
autumn 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e20
001-170344_a4_em21
PERSON
QUASI
A.H.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e21
001-170344_a4_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em23
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e22
001-170344_a4_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e20
001-170344_a4_em25
PERSON
QUASI
A.H.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e23
001-170344_a4_em26
PERSON
QUASI
M.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e24
001-170344_a4_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
25 September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e25
001-170344_a4_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em29
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e19
001-170344_a4_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
autumn 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e26
001-170344_a4_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
9 February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e27
001-170344_a4_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
17 February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e28
001-170344_a4_em33
ORG
QUASI
Lublin Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e17
001-170344_a4_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em35
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e29
001-170344_a4_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
August 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e20
001-170344_a4_em37
PERSON
QUASI
A.H.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e17
001-170344_a4_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em39
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e30
001-170344_a4_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
summer 2004
HEALTH
insert
001-170344_a4_e31
001-170344_a4_em41
DEM
NO_MASK
depression
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e19
001-170344_a4_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
autumn 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e32
001-170344_a4_em43
MISC
NO_MASK
Article 56 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em44
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e20
001-170344_a4_em45
PERSON
QUASI
A.H.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e33
001-170344_a4_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
almost four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e34
001-170344_a4_em47
MISC
NO_MASK
Article 56 § 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170344_a4_e35
001-170344_a4_em48
MISC
NO_MASK
Article 5 of the Civil Code
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em49
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e36
001-170344_a4_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e16
001-170344_a4_em51
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e37
001-170344_a4_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170344_a4_e38
001-170344_a4_em53
ORG
QUASI
Lublin Court of Appeal
Artur Babiarz
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Artur Babiarz