EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 29680/96

Iwona Siemieńska-Kledzik

against

Poland

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 27 October 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1-2) 1

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 3-14) 1

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 15-23)              2

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 24-25)              3

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION              4

I. THE PARTIES

1. This Report, which is drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention, concerns the application brought by Ms. Iwona Siemieńska-Kledzik against Poland.

2. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

3. In 1982 the applicant married K. K.  On 19 September 1987 K. K. filed an action for divorce with the PoznaÅ„ District Court (SÄ…d Rejonowy ).

4. The court subsequently held three hearings in an attempt to obtain a reconciliation of the parties, on 5 and 29 January and on 1 April 1988.  The applicant was not present at any of these hearings, for reasons of bad health.

5. On 13 May 1988 K. K. requested that the court pronounce an annulment of the marriage instead of divorce.  On 21 June 1988 a medical expert, R.G., submitted his opinion to the court as regards the applicant's health at the time when she had entered into the marriage.              At a hearing on 9 September 1988 the applicant's counsel requested that the hearing be adjourned so that he could submit a reply to the annulment claim.

6. On 23 January 1989 a psychologist, E.K., submitted a further expert report to the court.  On 9 February 1989 the Poznań District Prosecutor joined the proceedings.  On 5 April 1989 a further expert report was lodged with the court.  At a hearing on 24 April 1989 the parties requested that the court hear certain further evidence.  At a hearing on 5 June 1989 the court heard evidence from two experts and questioned four witnesses.  The hearing was adjourned in order to question further experts.

7. On 5 September 1989 the hearing was adjourned.  At a hearing on 6 October 1989  the court ordered that the fourth expert submit a further report.

8. At a hearing on 22 February 1991 two experts failed to attend. At a hearing on 18 March 1991 three experts gave evidence.  They upheld the conclusions contained in their reports.

9. On 2 April 1991 the PoznaÅ„ District Court annulled the applicant's marriage.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.              On 27 September 1991 the PoznaÅ„ Regional Court (SÄ…d Wojewódzki ) quashed this judgment and ordered the case to be reconsidered.

10. The case was subsequently transmitted to the Poznań Regional Court which had become competent to examine the case as a first-instance court due to a change of the relevant legislation.

11. On 10 February 1992 the hearing before the Regional Court was adjourned.  At a hearing on 27 April 1992 the court heard evidence from two experts.  Subsequently, the court appointed two new experts, who refused to submit their reports.  The Court appointed another expert, who on 8 March 1993 submitted his report.

12. At a hearing on 2 June 1993 the court heard evidence from the expert.  At a hearing on 28 April 1994 the court heard evidence from two other experts.  At a hearing on 29 August 1994 the court heard evidence from one witness and from the plaintiff.  At a hearing on 28 November 1994 the plaintiff changed the claim to a divorce claim and further witnesses were questioned.

13. At a hearing on 26 April 1995 the court heard evidence from one witness.  Further witnesses were questioned at a hearing on 30 August 1995.  On 11 September 1995 the Poznań Regional Court dissolved the applicant's marriage.

14. Before the Commission the applicant complains that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

15. The application was introduced on 31 August 1995 and registered on 4 January 1996.

16. On 17 January 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the divorce proceedings to the respondent Government.

17. The Government's written observations were submitted on 7 June 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.  The applicant replied on 5 August 1997.

18. On 14 January 1998 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.  It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.

19. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 30 January 1998 and they were invited to submit such further observations on the merits as they wished.  Neither party availed itself of this possibility.

20. By a letter of 27 February 1998 the applicant informed the Commission that she did not wish to pursue the case.

21. By a letter of 21 September 1998 the Government informed the Secretariat of the Commission that they did not have any objections to  the case being struck off the Commission's list of cases.

22. On 27 October 1998 the Commission (Second Chamber) adopted the present Report, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

23. The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

D. ŠVÁBY

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

24. The Commission notes that the applicant has expressed her wish not to pursue the case before the Commission.  The respondent Government did not object thereto.

25. Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission concludes that in the circumstances of the present case the applicant does not intend to pursue her petition.  Moreover, as regards the issues in the present case, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for human rights, as defined by the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 29680/96 OFF ITS LIST OF              CASES;

ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;

DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers              for information, to send it also to the parties' representatives and to publish it.

       M.-T. SCHOEPFER                            J.-C. GEUS

          Secretary                           President

     to the Second Chamber               of the Second Chamber