The rejection of a divorce lawsuit of a spouse and his inability to marry his mistress does not violate his right to family life.
JUDGMENT
Babiarz v. Poland (application no. 1955/10) 10.01.2017
SUMMARY
Divorce proceedings. Rejection due to the plaintiff’s fault. The case concerned the refusal of the Polish authorities to grant the applicant a divorce. he complained that this violated his right to marry the partner with whom he now shares his life, whith whom he now lives his life. His lawsuits for marriage were dismissed because of his responsibility for the dissolution of his marriage and the non-consent of his spouse. Referring to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 12 (marriage) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant argued that the refusal to grant him a divorce by the courts prevented him from marrying his partner . The ECtHR held that the refusal of the Polish courts did not constitute a violation of the ECHR provisions.
USE
The rejection of a divorce lawsuit due to the plaintiff’s fault is compatible with the ECHR and does not violate either the right to (new) marriage or the right to his / her family.
PROVISION
Article 8
Article 12
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Artur Babiarz, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Dębowa Kłoda. The case concerned the Polish authorities’ refusal to grant Mr Babiarz a divorce. He complained that this breached his right to marry his current partner, who is the mother of his child.
Mr Babiarz married R. in 1997. In autumn 2004, he met his current partner. In January 2005, he moved out of the flat he shared with R. and began living with his current partner, who gave birth to their daughter in October 2005. On 25 September 2006, Mr Babiarz filed a petition for a no-fault divorce. R. did not agree to the divorce, declared that she loved Mr Babiarz, and asked the court to dismiss the divorce petition. Mr Babiarz then requested a divorce on fault-based grounds. Throughout the proceedings, R. maintained her refusal to divorce. A number of hearings were held during which 13 witnesses were heard, including family and colleagues. On 17 February 2009, the Lublin Regional Court refused to grant the divorce to Mr Babiarz. The court held that he was the only one responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, due to his infidelity. The court emphasised that, under Article 56 § 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code, a divorce cannot be granted if it has been requested by the party who was at fault for the marital breakdown and if the other spouse refuses to consent. It further noted that that there was no indication that R. was acting out of hatred or vengeance by withholding her consent to divorce as she had repeatedly expressed her desire to reconcile with him.
Mr Babiarz appealed against the judgment. He argued in particular that the court had erred in holding that a spouse’s refusal to consent to divorce could be disregarded only when it was abusive or dictated by hostility towards the spouse seeking the divorce. Mr Babiarz contended that the court should have examined the negative consequences caused by continuing the formal existence of a failed marriage. On 16 June 2009, the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Babiarz’s appeal.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family) and Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Babiarz argued that by refusing to grant him a divorce, the courts had prevented him from marrying his partner.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 8
No violation of Article 12 steroids reddit steroidi orali