Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

A.B. v. Poland (dec.) - 33878/96

Decision 18.10.2001 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Publication in the press of a "wanted" notice containing a photograph of the applicant and his daughter: inadmissible

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Extradition proceedings: Article 6 not applicable

In 1993, after the applicant and his wife had separated, the Canadian judicial authorities awarded sole custody of the couple’s daughter to the mother and granted the applicant supervised access. The applicant, a Polish national, left Canada in 1994 and th e divorce was granted by the Canadian courts in May 1995. When his daughter came to visit her maternal grandparents in September 1995 the applicant abducted her at Warsaw Airport. The Canadian authorities demanded the return of the child and proceedings we re instituted in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In a decision of September 1995 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to return the child to her mother immediately; that decision was up held in March 1996, and on several occasions between 1996 and 1998 formal notice to hand over the child was accordingly served on the applicant by a bailiff. In 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court acknowledged the decree of divorce granted by the Canadian court as being valid within Polish territory. In 1997 the Warsaw District Court deprived the applicant of parental responsibility; that decision was upheld on appeal in 1998. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was allowed by the Supreme Court, which qu ashed the decisions in issue and referred the case to a lower court for a fresh examination. Meanwhile, in June 1998, the applicant had been detained pending trial for refusing to comply with the order to hand over the child. However, in the light of the S upreme Court’s decision, he was released and the proceedings brought against him were discontinued. In November 1998 the district prosecutor had a “wanted” notice published in two daily newspapers, together with a photograph of the applicant and his daught er. In 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decision to deprive the applicant of parental responsibility and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh hearing. The District Court ordered an expert psychological assessment of the child and a sked the expert to indicate which of the parents was the more suitable to look after her. The expert concluded that the father was the more suitable, and at the same time information describing the mother’s activities as a member of a sect with occult tend encies was received from external sources. In 2000 the District Court stayed execution of the decision ordering the applicant to hand over the child. In May 1999 the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw had written to the Polish authorities to request the extraditio n of the applicant for failure to comply with the Canadian court’s decision on the exercise of parental responsibility. In 2000 the extradition was refused on the ground that Poland could not extradite one of its own nationals. In April 2000 the District C ourt deprived the applicant of parental responsibility, noting that it had not been able to interview the child or to have her examined by an approved psychologist, in spite of the assurances that had been given to the applicant and the child, and that it had also been unable to consider the evidence relating to the mother’s activities in the sect, since that evidence had been received from external sources about which it had no information. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed on the ground that he had abused his parental responsibility and had refused to reply to the court’s proposals in spite of the assurances it had given. In August 2000 the Ombudsman applied to the relevant District Court to stay execution of the decision it had delivered in Septemb er 1995; in particular, he argued that the child, who was aged twelve, could by now state her own opinion. In September 2000 the applicant applied to the District Court to vary its decision to deprive him of parental responsibility. The court ordered the O mbudsman to indicate where the child lived, and the Ombudsman did so. The president of the court then ordered the application to be restored to the list of cases, indicating that the court for the district where the child lived had jurisdiction to try the case. The Ombudsman appealed but without success. In February 2001 the District Court ordered the applicant’s arrest. The applicant’s representative took steps to obtain official notification of the order, in order to be able to lodge an appeal. His effort s have apparently been to no avail.

Inadmissible under Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 6 § 1 (extradition proceedings).

Inadmissible under Article 8: dissemination of a “wanted” notice in the press amounted to an interference with the right to privacy. The interfer ence in the instant case had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the child’s interests and had been justified by the failure of the various methods employed to make the father hand over his daughter. The measure had therefore been necessary in a democ ratic society: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes