PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 8612/02) 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, Ms Beata Maria Nowak (“the applicant”), on 7 February 2002.

The applicant was represented by Ms A. Tomaszewska-Wójcik, a lawyer practising in Gniezno. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 26 August 2005 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gniezno.

A. The facts prior to 1 May 1993

The applicant and her husband married in 1987. Their daughter was born in the same year. At the end of 1988 the husband left the applicant and their daughter.

On 1 February 1989 the applicant’s husband filed a petition for divorce with the Gniezno District Court. He also sought eviction of the applicant from their matrimonial home. In the course of the proceedings the claimant modified his claims on several occasions.

On 9 May 1990 the Gniezno District Court ordered the claimant to pay interim maintenance to the applicant. The amount of interim maintenance was increased in the course of the proceedings on several occasions.

On an unspecified later date the applicant requested that judge P.K. withdraw from sitting in the case. On 4 October 1990 the Gniezno District Court granted the applicant’s request.

On an unspecified date at the beginning of 1992 the applicant requested that judge M.S. withdraw from sitting in the case. At about the same time, five other judges of that court declared that they wanted to withdraw. On 19 February 1992 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request in respect of judge M.S. It acceded to the requests to withdraw in respect of four judges of the Gniezno District Court. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 April 1992 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and remitted the case. On 14 September 1992 the Poznań Regional Court ordered that two other judges of the District Court, including judge M.S., withdraw from the divorce case. It also ordered that the case be transmitted to the Września District Court for examination. The Regional Court considered that the particular position of the claimant, who was a doctor in the small town of Gniezno, might raise subjective doubts on the part of the applicant as to the impartiality of the judges of the Gniezno District Court.

B. The facts after 1 May 1993

On 14 May 1993 the Września District Court exempted the applicant from the court fees.

In 1995 the applicant was declared to have the so-called “third degree of invalidity” and was granted an invalidity pension.

On 9 May 1996 a panel of three judges of the Września District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for judge M.J. to withdraw from the case. It found that the applicant’s claims of bias based on alleged delays in the examination of her application for an increase of interim maintenance and lack of supervision of the experts had no bearing on the judge’s impartiality. The panel of the District Court also considered that there had been no links between judge M.J. and the parties to the proceedings which could call into question the impartiality of that judge. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Poznań Regional Court on 10 September 1996. The Regional Court endorsed the findings of the District Court.

On 8 July 1997 the Września District Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed request for judge M.J. to withdraw. It also imposed a fine of PLN 300 on the applicant for the submission of a groundless request. It appears that the applicant appealed against that decision. However, she has not produced a copy of the decision given on appeal.

On an unspecified date before 1 July 1998 the applicant submitted to the District Court a medical certificate and requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 1 July 1998 due to her illness.

On 1 July 1998 the court held a hearing and heard the claimant and two witnesses. The hearing in the case was closed.

On 3 July 1998 the applicant requested the court to reopen the hearing, referring to her medical certificate and to the fact that she had not been heard by the court.

On 6 July 1998 the Września District Court gave judgment and granted a divorce. It found that both parties had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. It ordered the claimant to pay the applicant PLN 800 per month in maintenance in respect of their daughter. The applicant appealed against that judgment.

On 5 February 1999 the Poznań Regional Court held a hearing and heard both parties. On 9 February 1999 it gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court.

On 26 July 2001 the Supreme Court held a hearing. On 9 August 2001 it gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. It found, inter alia, that the District Court’s decision to proceed with the hearing on 1 July 1998 had been incorrect, but that in any event it had not prejudiced the applicant’s right to defend her interests effectively in the proceedings. The Supreme Court had regard to the fact that the applicant had been heard earlier by the District Court on two occasions. Moreover, both the claimant and the defendant had been heard in the appeal proceedings before the Regional Court. In respect of the two witnesses who had been heard on 1 July 1998, the Supreme Court found that their evidence had been immaterial for the determination of the divorce case. The judgment of the Supreme Court was served on the applicant on 11 September 2001.