European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Malgorzata KWIATKOWSKA v Germany - 16937/05 [2008] ECHR 164 (22 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/164.html
Cite as: [2008] ECHR 164
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
16937/05
by Małgorzata KWIATKOWSKA
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana
Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Renate
Jaeger,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Małgorzata Kwiatkowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kirchen in Germany.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
In 1993 the applicant separated from her husband. The couple has two children, born in 1988 and 1991.
On 10 April 1997 and 18 February 2000, in different sets of divorce proceedings, the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant’s husband to pay a certain amount of money for the family’s upkeep.
2. Proceedings before the German family courts
In November 1997 the applicant lodged a motion for alimony for the time of their separation with the Westerburg District Court (Amtsgericht).
On 20 October 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion as inadmissible, as the question of alimony had already been settled by the Warsaw District Court’s decision of 10 April 1997.
On 17 May 1999, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Koblenz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) issued a default judgment in the applicant’s favour.
On 29 November 1999, following the husband’s appeal against the default judgment, the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing.
By judgment given on 20 December 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment and referred the case back to the District Court. The Court of Appeal considered, in particular, that the decision taken by the Polish court did not prevent the District Court from examining the merits of the case.
On 29 June 2000 the Westerburg District Court ordered the preparation of an expert opinion on the impact of the Polish proceedings on the proceedings before the domestic courts.
On 1 December 2000 the case-file was served on the expert, who submitted his expert opinion on 12 February 2001.
By judgment of 5 February 2004 the Westerburg District Court, following an oral hearing, ordered the applicant’s husband to pay a certain amount of alimony to the applicant and rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claims.
On 28 October 2004 the Koblenz Court of Appeal, following an oral hearing held on 29 August 2004, partially granted the applicant’s husband’s appeal and reduced the amount of alimony to be paid to the applicant.
By letter of 10 December 2004 the applicant requested the Federal Court of Law (Bundesgerichtshof) to grant her leave to appeal. By letter of 12 January 2005 the Federal Court of Law informed the applicant that, according to the relevant legal provisions, no appeal lay against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings before the German family courts. She alleged that the excessive length of the proceedings had led to a serious deterioration of her health which made her unfit for work.
2. The applicant further complained that the German courts violated her dignity and damaged her reputation by making defamatory statements and by misrepresenting the facts of the case. She further complained that she had been denied equal access to and equal treatment by the German courts. The Court of Appeal had been biased against her, had favoured her husband and had erroneously assessed the evidence. Finally, the applicant contested the amount of alimony awarded in the final judgment.
THE LAW
1. The complaint about the length of the proceedings
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings before the German family courts had been excessive. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be considered under Article 6 § 1 which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The remainder of the applicant’s complaints
Having regard to the applicant’s complaints about the court proceedings at issue, the Court, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings before the family courts;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President