AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                        Application No. 28244/95

                        by Violetta MYSZK

                        against Poland

      The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:

            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. SVÁBY

                  P. LORENZEN

                  E. BIELIUNAS

                  E.A. ALKEMA

                  A. ARABADJIEV

            Ms    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 7 February 1995

by Violetta Myszk against Poland and registered on 18 August 1995 under

file No. 28244/95;

      Having regard to:

-     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

      the Commission;

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

      28 July 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

      applicant on 7 January 1998;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1964, is a teacher,

residing in Lasin.

      The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows:

Particular circumstances of the case

      In December 1993 the applicant attempted to commit suicide.

After she left a hospital, she moved in with her mother.  On

23 December 1993 the applicant lodged a request with the Grudzi*dz

District Court to have access to her children, R., born in 1985, and

K., born in 1988, who had remained with her husband in the marital

home, while she stayed in her mother's apartment.

      On 12 January 1994 the Grudzi*dz District Court (S*d Rejonowy)

held a hearing in access proceedings at which it heard, inter alia,

evidence from an educationalist at the school attended by R. He stated

that the  child had once said at school that he had been beaten by his

father.  On the same date the Grudzi*dz District Court pronounced an

interim order concerning access to the children.  The court granted the

applicant  unlimited access to them at their place of residence with

their father and at school and allowed them to visit the applicant

every second day for two hours in the afternoon in her mother's

apartment.

      In early February 1994 the applicant's husband left Lasin with

the children and settled in his parent's house in Kamienica Królewska,

approximately 200 kilometres from Lasin.  The applicant informed the

court thereof.

      In a further interim order of 23 February 1994 the Grudzi*dz

District Court changed the access arrangements set out in the order of

12 January 1994 in that it awarded custody of the children to their

father, residing in Kamienica Królewska, and allowed the applicant to

have access to them in their home.

      In taking this decision the court considered the evidence of a

psychologist who had examined the family.  The Court observed that the

applicant's husband had shown good parental skills and that the

applicant should have been aware, when taking her decision to commit

suicide, that the children would be taken care of by her husband.  The

children's interest would be best served by leaving them with their

father in Kamienica Królewska.  The applicant herself had not alleged

that her husband was incapable of taking competent care of them.

A definitive assessment of his decision to take them to Kamienica

Królewska, which was contrary to the terms of the order of 12 January

1994, would be made in a final decision to be pronounced in the access

proceedings.  However, the children had already spent several weeks in

Kamienica Królewska and had satisfactory living conditions there and

were properly cared for.  Forcing the applicant's husband to comply

with the order of 12 January 1994 would not serve their best interest.

The court also had regard to the fact that the children's father had

found employment in Kamienica Królewska, which he had not been able to

find in Lasin.

      On 3 March 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal, submitting that

the impugned order gave countenance to her husband's failure to comply

with the order of 12 January 1994 and in practice deprived her of any

possibility of access to the children and of having a say in their

education.  The court should, she insisted, have taken measures in

order to force her husband to comply with that order.  She had returned

to the marital home after her stay with her mother, but her husband had

left Lasin on purpose as he wished to cut off her contact with the

children.  She further submitted that the court had failed to examine

thoroughly the children's situation in their new place of residence,

in particular as regards their transport to school and the medical care

available for K. She emphasised that the impugned order had been taken

at a hearing in camera and that she had not been heard by the court,

while her husband had.  She submitted that her attempt to commit

suicide should not be held against her in the decisions concerning

access arrangements.

      On 11 March 1994 an expert opinion by two psychologists was

submitted to the Grudzi*dz District Court.

      In March 1994 the applicant's husband refused to allow the

children to spend Easter with her.

      On 19 April 1994 the Torun Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki)

dismissed the applicant's appeal of 3 March 1994.  The court found,

that, contrary to what the applicant alleged, the lower court had

examined the children's situation in detail and, having relied on the

reports of a social worker, had established that the children were well

cared for and had adequate material conditions.  They were satisfied

with their life with their father and had not expressed a wish to

return to Lasin, although they wished that their parents would live

together again.  The court acknowledged that, in view of the distance

between the applicant's residence and that of her children, her

effective access to them was difficult, but pointed out that this

solution was only a temporary one, to be ultimately changed by the

final decision in the access proceedings, which were likely to end in

the near future.

      In June 1994 the applicant requested the Grudzi*dz District Court

to pronounce an order allowing the children to spend their summer

holidays with her.  She submitted that her husband had intercepted her

letters to the boys and had not allowed them to spend Easter with her

in Lasin.  During her visit to Kamienica Królewska.  In May her husband

had refused to leave her alone with the children.  During her visit in

June he had verbally insulted her in their presence.

      On 15 June 1994 the applicant lodged a divorce action with the

Torun Regional Court.  On 19 August 1994 the court held

a reconciliation session, which failed.

      On 14 September 1994 the Grudzi*dz District Court convicted the

applicant's husband of battering her from June 1993 to February 1994,

sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment and a fine, and

suspended execution of the prison sentence.

      On 10 October 1994 the applicant submitted a request to the Torun

Regional Court to have the access arrangements changed by way of

interim orders under Article 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that

she could have custody of the children until a final decision in this

respect was taken in the divorce proceedings. On the same date the

court fixed the date for a hearing in the divorce proceedings for

9 November 1994 and requested the Grudzi*dz District Court to transfer

the case-file of the access proceedings to it.

      On 24 October 1994 the applicant's husband filed a reply to her

request of 10 October 1994 with the Torun Regional Court.

      On 31 October 1994 the Torun Family Diagnostics Centre filed with

the Grudzi*dz District Court a further expert opinion for the purpose

of the access proceedings concerning the current psychological

situation of the family and the relations between the children and the

parents.

      At the hearing on 9 November 1994 the applicant's husband

challenged all the judges of the Torun Regional Court.  The court

adjourned hearings in order to decide on the application.

      On 10 November 1994 the Grudzi*dz District Court transferred the

access proceedings to the Torun Regional Court in order for them to be

joined with the divorce proceedings.

      On 21 November 1994 the applicant reiterated her request of

6 October 1994 to have custody of the children.

      On  1 December 1994 the applicant requested that the children be

allowed to spend Christmas with her.  On 12 December 1994 the Torun

Regional Court granted her request.  The applicant's husband failed to

comply with the order, despite three police interventions.

On 28 January 1994 the applicant informed the court thereof.

      On an unspecified later date the Torun Regional Court transmitted

the case-file of the divorce proceedings to the Gdansk Court of Appeal

(S*d Apelacyjny) for a decision in respect of the challenge of the

judges.

      On 13 January 1995 the Torun Regional Court dismissed the

applicant's husband's appeal against the judgment of 14 September 1994

pronounced in the criminal proceedings against him.

      On 10 February 1995 the case-file reached the Gdansk Court of

Appeal.

      On 10 March 1995 the applicant requested the Torun Regional Court

to issue an order allowing the children to spend Easter with her.  The

court requested the Gdansk Court of Appeal to transmit the case-file

to it immediately so that this request could be dealt with.  The case-

file reached the Torun Regional Court on 29 March 1995.  On 30 March

1995 a letter from the applicant's husband was submitted to the court,

in which he argued that the court could not issue any orders in the

divorce proceedings in view of the fact that his challenge still

remained pending.  On 31 March 1995 the Torun Regional Court, again by

way of interim order issued in the divorce proceedings, allowed the

applicant to take the children for Easter.  On 11 April 1995 the

applicant's husband lodged an appeal.

      On 14 April 1995 the applicant's husband refused to give her the

children.  On 21 April 1995 she complained to the court.

      On 25 May 1995 the Gdansk Court of Appeal examined the challenge

of the judges of the Torun Regional Court submitted by the applicant's

husband in the divorce proceedings and ordered that the case-file be

returned to the latter court as certain statements of the challenged

judges relevant to their alleged lack of impartiality as regards the

applicant and her husband were, apparently, missing.  On the same date

the court dismissed the applicant's husband's appeal against the orders

of 12 December 1994 and 30 March 1995, considering that there were no

indications that contact with the applicant could be to the children's

detriment as the boys had a strong emotional bond with their mother and

as the expert report had not shown that she was suffering from any

mental illness, contrary to her husband's assertions.

      On an unspecified later date the case-file was again transmitted

to the Gdansk Court of Appeal.

      On 14 June 1995 the Grudzi*dz District Court convicted the

applicant's husband of theft of her personal effects and a car,

sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and suspended the execution

of the prison sentence.

      On 10 July 1995 the applicant requested the Torun Regional Court

to allow her children to spend the holidays with her.  On the same day

that court requested the Gdansk Court of Appeal  to send the case-file

to it.  On 20 July 1995 the Torun Regional Court granted the

applicant's request and allowed the children to spend  August with her.

The applicant's husband filed an appeal, which was rejected on 1 August

1995 as he had failed to comply with the relevant formal requirements.

      On 2 August 1995 the applicant complained to the bailiff of the

Kartuzy District Court that her husband had taken the children away

from his home and thus had made it impossible for her to take them, and

requested his assistance in enforcing the order.  On 3 August 1995 the

bailiff ordered the applicant's husband to comply.  On 11 August 1995

she informed the bailiff that her husband had failed to comply.  Later

in August the bailiff informed the court that he had twice tried to

serve summonses on the applicant's husband, but it had proved

impossible as he was not present at his home in Kamienica Królewska.

      On 1 September 1995 the case-file was again returned to the

Gdansk Court of Appeal.  On an unspecified later date the court

dismissed the challenge of the judges.  On 11 November 1995 the case-

file was again transmitted to the Torun Regional Court.

      On 10 November 1995 the applicant requested the Torun Regional

Court to permit the children to spend Christmas with her.  On an

unspecified later date the court agreed.  On 29 November 1995 the

applicant's husband lodged an appeal.  On 27 March 1996 the Gdansk

Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.  On 29 April 1996 the case-file

was again returned to the Torun Regional Court.

      On 29 August 1996 a hearing was held before the Torun Regional

Court.  The court ordered that the parties be further examined by the

specialists of the Family Diagnostics Centre.

      On 29 October 1996 a further hearing was held before the Torun

Regional Court, at which the court heard submissions of the parties,

issued a new order as to the applicant's access to her children and

invited the parties to reach reconciliation.

      On 16 December 1996 the court received a letter from the parties

from which it transpired that the applicant had moved in with her

husband and that they had decided to live together.  They requested the

court to stay the proceedings. On 18 December 1996 the court decided

to stay the proceedings in view of the applicant's reconciliation with

her husband.  They have not been resumed since then.

Relevant domestic law and practice

      The Polish Family and Care Code provides that the court competent

to deal with an action for divorce is also competent to issue any

interim orders concerning the manner in which the care of the parties'

minor children should be carried out and about the access rights until

the divorce judgment is pronounced.  Either of the parties can file a

request to have such an order made; or the court does so ex officio

(Article 443).

      Such an order can be appealed against to a second-instance court.

      A final court decision as to parental rights and access

arrangements can be changed at any time if the interests of the child

so require, either upon a motion from either parent or ex officio by

the court.

      If a parent who has been obliged by a court decision to respect

the other parent's access rights refuses to comply therewith,  access

decisions are liable to enforcement.  The provisions of the Code of

Civil Procedure on enforcement of non-pecuniary obligations are

applicable to the enforcement proceedings concerning judicial decisions

on parental rights and access arrangements (resolution of the Supreme

Court of 30 January 1976, III CZP 94/75, OSNCP 1976/7-8).

      Enforcement proceedings are instituted following a motion to this

effect by an applicant, i.e. that parent to whom access rights have

been granted, but are not respected by the other parent.  The motion

shall be accompanied by the decision concerned, certified as to its

being executory.  The motion is submitted to the bailiff who carries

out the enforcement.  The respondent is informed at the first

enforcement measure that the enforcement proceedings have been

instituted.  He is also informed of the manner in which the enforcement

is to be carried out (Article 805 para. 1 of the CCP).

      Enforcement of decisions concerning access arrangements aims at

compelling the parent who has custody of the child to comply with the

access decision.

      If the parent refuses to comply with the enforcement measures,

a motion to have a fine imposed on him or her can be submitted to the

court in whose district the enforcement is carried out.  The court

hears submissions of the parties and imposes a fine if the decision is

not complied with within this time-limit.  Further fines can be imposed

if the creditor persists in his or her refusal (Article 1051 of the

CCP).

      In pursuance of Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

a judge steps down, upon the motion of one of the parties, if there

exists a personal relation between him or her and one of the parties

which may cast doubt on his or her impartiality.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains in substance that she cannot have access

to her children and that her husband's aim is to destroy the emotional

bonds between her and her children.  She submits in particular that the

court order of 23 February 1994 gave countenance to her husband's

failure to comply with the earlier order and de facto deprived her of

access.

      She further complains in substance that the divorce proceedings

are going on too long, making it impossible to have the access

arrangements finalised.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 7 February 1995 and registered

on 18 August 1995.

      On 9 April 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

applicant's complaint concerning difficulties in obtaining access to

her sons and the length of access and divorce proceedings to the

respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits

to be submitted by 24 June 1997.  Subsequently, the time-limit was

prolonged until 24 July 1997.

      By a letter of 1 May 1997 the applicant's mother informed the

Commission that her daughter had had a reconciliation with her husband

and therefore pursuing the  application became devoid of purpose.

By a letter of 22 May 1997 the applicant's mother was informed that it

did not transpire from any documents that her daughter had authorised

her to represent her before the Commission.  Thus, in view of Article

30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, her daughter should inform the

Commission whether she indeed intended to withdraw the application.

      By a letter of 23 July 1997 the applicant's mother informed the

Commission that the situation in her daughter's family had greatly

improved and that her daughter would provide the relevant information.

      The Government submitted their observations on 28 July 1997.

      On 15 October 1997 observations in the case were submitted by the

applicant's mother.  By a letter of 29 October 1997 she was again

requested to submit a power of attorney and the applicant was warned

that a strike-off would be considered if she did not submit her

observations or a power of attorney to her mother by 23 December 1997.

On 7 January 1998 the applicant submitted her observations and

requested that her mother's submissions be taken into consideration.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains in substance under Article 8 (Art. 8) of

the Convention that she cannot have access to children, contrary to the

judicial decisions in the relevant proceedings.

      The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention, which in its relevant part reads:

      "1.Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family

      life, ...

      2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority

      with the exercise of this right except such as is in

      accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

      society in the interests of national security, public

      safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the

      prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

      health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

      freedoms of others."

a)    The Government first submit that the applicant has failed to

exhaust relevant domestic remedies. It was open to her to use normal

enforcement measures under Article 1051 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

applicable to the enforcement of court orders concerning non-pecuniary

obligations.  The applicant did not request the bailiff of the court

with jurisdiction over her husband's place of residence to assist her

in the enforcement of the access order.  The Government conclude that

the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her

under Polish law and that for this reason this part of the application

should be declared inadmissible.

      The applicant submits that in fact she submitted such a request

on 2 August 1995.

      The Commission observes that it clearly transpires from the

documents submitted by the applicant that she requested the bailiff of

the Kartuzy District Court to assist her in obtaining enforcement of

the court's decision of 20 July 1995 according to which her children

should spend the holidays with her.  It further transpires that on

3 August 1995 the bailiff ordered the applicant's husband to comply.

On 11 August 1995 she informed the bailiff that he had failed to

comply.  Later in August the bailiff informed the court that he had

twice tried to serve summonses on the applicant's husband, but to no

avail.  Therefore the Commission considers that the applicant in fact

tried the relevant remedy referred to by the Government, but that this

remedy proved to be ineffective in that the applicant was unable

thereby to obtain her husband's compliance with the court's decisions.

      It follows that this part of the application cannot be declared

inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

b)    As to the substance of the complaint, the Government submit that

the Grudzi*dz District Court, on 12 January 1994 and 23 February 1994,

issued decisions regulating access to the applicant's children and

these decisions were subsequently served on the applicant.  These

decisions preserved the applicant's access to her children until

a final judgment in the divorce proceedings.

      The Government further argue that the courts, when taking the

decisions of 23 February 1994 and 19 April 1994, could not have taken

into consideration the applicant's husband's conviction for battering

her as these proceedings were still pending before the first-instance

court.

      The Government finally state that it was open to the applicant

to request that the access decisions be enforced by the bailiff of the

Kartuzy District Court, but that she failed to do so.  The Government

conclude that the applicant's failure to request assistance from

competent State authorities cannot engage the responsibility of the

State, and that the application should be declared manifestly ill-

founded.

      The applicant submits that the Grudzi*dz District Court, by its

order of 23 February 1994, authorised her husband's failure to comply

with the earlier order of 14 January 1994, as his removal of the

children from L. made it very difficult for her to have effective

access to them.  She further argues that, when issuing this order, the

court acted very speedily, whereas it was not so efficient when dealing

with her request concerning the access arrangements.

      She further contends that the courts consistently failed to

react to her complaints about her difficulties in the relations with

her children caused by her husband's lack of cooperation, verbal abuse

and psychological cruelty.  The courts, in particular the Grudzi*dz

District Court, showed an inhuman disregard for her feelings as

a mother.  The courts treated her as if they were acting on the

assumption that she was at fault in the difficulties affecting her

family life, without there being any sound grounds therefor.  The

enforcement proceedings proved ineffective in the face of her husband's

obstinate refusal to cooperate.

      The applicant submits that she has been wronged by the courts,

which showed lack of common sense and unreasonably delayed her case.

She submits that she kept the courts informed about her difficulties

in obtaining effective access to her children, in particular in that

she could not take them for a walk or talk to them without the presence

of other persons.  She submits that none of the decisions ordering her

husband to permit the children to spend certain periods with her were

complied with.  For three years she had contact with children mostly

at their school or on the premises of the Family Diagnostics Centre.

She submits that she informed the Torun Regional Court, before which

the divorce proceedings were pending, about the criminal proceedings

against her husband for failure to comply with the access orders.

      The applicant further submits that her husband is violent and

that their family requires regular therapy.  She states that the State

does not provide any effective prevention programmes as regards

domestic violence and that the courts do not treat this issue as

seriously as they should.

      The Commission recalls that, although the object of Article 8

(Art. 8) is essentially to protect the individual against arbitrary

interference by the public authorities, it may also impose positive

obligations on the State inherent in an effective respect for family

life.  These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed

to secure respect for family life even in the sphere of the relations

of individuals between themselves (Eur. Court HR, X and Y v. the

Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11,

para. 2).  However, the notion of "respect" enshrined in Article 8

(Art. 8) is not clear-cut. Especially where the positive obligations

implicit in that concept are concerned, its requirements will vary

considerably from case to case according to the practices followed and

the situations obtaining in the Contracting States (Eur. Court HR,

Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299,

p. 34, para. 131).

      In the present case the Commission first observes that the

applicant's husband, when taking the children away from Lasin in

February 1994, did indeed act in defiance of the court's order of

12 January 1994, which granted unlimited access rights to the

applicant.  The court, when issuing the decision of 23 February 1994,

in fact gave countenance to this course of action.

      The Commission further observes that the applicant had

difficulties in obtaining effective access to her children due to her

husband's active hostility towards her.  This is shown in particular

by the fact that she could not obtain her husband's compliance with

three court orders in respect of access arrangements involving her

children's stay for certain periods in her place of residence.

      However, the Commission notes that it does not transpire from the

case-file that she could not have had access to her children at all.

She herself submits that she was able to visit the children at their

place of residence and at their school and that she availed herself of

this possibility.  It is true that she contends that she could not see

her sons without her husband being present.  However, it transpires

from certain documents in the case-file that the applicant's contacts

with her children were and remained good throughout the proceedings.

This is shown in particular by the Gdansk Court of Appeal's decision

of 25 May 1995, in which it found that there were no indications that

contact with the applicant could be to the children's detriment as they

had a strong emotional bond with their mother.  Moreover, the courts,

when deciding that the children could spend holidays with the

applicant, must reasonably have relied on the fact that their emotional

relations were good and thus visits to their mother's home were in

their interest.

      The Commission further notes that the applicant did not actively

pursue her application before the Commission from the time of

communication to the respondent Government.  It was only her mother who

maintained correspondence with the Commission, without any power of

attorney having been submitted to it authorising her to represent the

applicant.  The applicant did not respond to the Commission's

enquiries, aimed at establishing her intentions with regard to her

application.  It transpires from her mother's submissions, contained

in her letters of 1 May and 23 July 1997, that before May 1997 the

applicant had moved to her husband's house, that they had resumed

family life and that the general family situation had greatly improved.

This submission was corroborated by the Government's submissions, in

which they stated that in a letter of 16 December 1996 the applicant

and her husband informed the court that they had reached

a reconciliation and requested the court to stay the divorce

proceedings.  The applicant did not contest this statement.  The

Commission further observes that it does not transpire from the

parties' submissions that the period in which the applicant did not

live with her children brought about any tangible deterioration of the

emotional bonds between her and them, which, according to the expert

reports submitted to the court in the divorce proceedings, were and

remained good.

      The Commission further notes that it was only in December 1997

that the applicant contacted the Commission, complaining mainly and in

very vague terms about new problems within her family.  There is no

indication that any proceedings relating to the applicant's access to

the children, except for the stayed divorce proceedings before the

Torun Regional Court, are pending  before any authorities.  The

Commission therefore considers that, insofar as it can be determined

on the basis of the applicant's slightly contradictory submissions,

that she indeed wishes to pursue her case, it cannot be determined from

her arguments that the lack or inadequacy of the State's  assistance

in the enforcement of her access rights led to a destruction of family

bonds between her and her children, and that any such lack or

inadequacy can be deemed to constitute lack of respect for her family

life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

      The Commission further notes that in her submissions to the

Commission the applicant mainly complains that the State does not

provide an  adequate framework in which families experiencing

difficulties can obtain competent and effective family counselling.

However, the applicant does not specify the nature and the precise

character of the difficulties encountered by her family after the

reconciliation with her husband, except for the fact that her husband

tends to be violent.  She has also failed to state whether she actually

tried to obtain any counselling and what was the concrete outcome of

her endeavours.  The Commission further considers that the positive

obligations of the State inherent in an effective "respect" for family

life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention do not

encompass an obligation to provide ex officio effective family

counselling to  families with problems.

      The Commission concludes that this part of the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      Insofar as it can be determined on the basis of the applicant's

submissions that she in fact alleges that her husband has a tendency

to be violent against her or the children, this complaint concerns a

private person, whose acts, however reprehensible, do not engage the

responsibility of the State.  It follows that this complaint is

incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning

of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.    The applicant complains in substance under Article 6 (Art. 6) of

the Convention that the proceedings in which the access issues were to

be determined lasted too long.

      Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads:

      "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and

      obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

      within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."

      The Government first submit that the period to be taken into

consideration started on 23 December 1993 and ended on 18 December

1996.  They further state that the case should be regarded as complex

as to the facts and law, the more so as two separate sets of

proceedings were conducted as regards access arrangements, the access

proceedings proper and the divorce proceedings.  After the applicant

instituted the divorce proceedings in June 1994, the Grudzi*dz court

transmitted the access case to the Torun court, before which the

divorce proceedings were pending, in order for the cases to be joined.

The Regional Court had to hold a hearing in order to take possible

interim decisions as to the access arrangements.  The applicant's

husband appealed against all orders concerning the children's visits

to  their mother, which considerably prolonged the proceedings as the

case-file had to be  transmitted to the Gdansk Court of Appeal on each

occasion.  Likewise, the challenge of the judges filed by the

applicant's husband prolonged the proceedings.

      The Government conclude that this complaint should be declared

manifestly ill-founded.

      The applicant argues that the proceedings have been unreasonably

long.

      The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of

proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular

circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria:

the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct

of the authorities dealing with the case (Eur. Court HR, Vernillo

v. Italy judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12,

para. 30).

      The Commission observes that the proceedings concerning access

were instituted on 23 December 1993.  On 10 November 1994 they were

joined with the divorce proceedings.  These proceedings were stayed on

18 December 1996 upon the parties' joint request and remain stayed.

Thus the total period to be considered is two years, eleven months and

twenty-five days.

      The Commission observes that in the present case the subject-

matter of the proceedings - at first issues of access to the children,

and then the same issues within the context of the divorce proceedings

- cannot in itself be regarded as being complex as to the law.  The

fact that the access proceedings were ultimately joined with the

divorce case did not affect the character of the case as it is a normal

obligation of the courts to decide on access arrangements in divorce

proceedings, both by way of interim orders if such a need arises or by

way of final judgment.  Likewise, in the Commission's view, there are

no indications that in the applicant's case there were any special

factual circumstances which would render the case complex.  As regards

the fact that the court requested that expert reports be prepared by

the Family Diagnostics Centre, this is a current practice of the courts

in divorce cases.  Therefore it cannot be regarded as sufficient

argument to support the conclusion that the case was complex.

      As regards the applicant's conduct, the Commission finds no

indication that she contributed to the length of the proceedings.

      Insofar as the conduct of the authorities is concerned, the

Commission first observes that the courts' conduct is open to criticism

as regards the manner in which the challenge of the judges submitted

by the applicant's husband was dealt with.  It was submitted on

9 November 1994 at the first hearing in the divorce case. Subsequently,

the case-file was several times transmitted between the Torun Regional

Court and the Gdansk Court of Appeal.  It is true that this was in part

due to the fact that the Torun Regional Court had to take interim

access orders upon the applicant's requests. However, it transpires

that on 25 May 1995 the Gdansk Court of Appeal returned the case back

to the Torun Regional Court in view of the fact that declarations of

certain judges as to their personal relations with the parties were

missing.  This irregularity, in the Commission's view, must be ascribed

to a certain lack of diligence on the part of the Torun Regional Court

in dealing with the challenge.  As a result, it took the Gdansk Court

of Appeal almost one year, from 9 November 1994 to an unspecified date

between 1 September 1995 and 11 November 1995, to decide on the

challenge, which is a considerable period to decide on such

a relatively simple issue.  Otherwise, the courts dealt promptly with

the applicant's requests to issue specific access orders and issued the

required decisions with no delays.  The Commission finally observes

that the divorce proceedings were stayed upon the parties' joint

request and remain pending.

      Assessing the facts of the case as a whole, and taking into

account in particular the fact that the overall length of the

proceedings was not significant, the Commission considers that the

access proceedings have not exceeded a "reasonable time" within the

meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  It follows

that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

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

      Secretary                                  President

to the Second Chamber                      of the Second Chamber