4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warszawa. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 9 November 1993 the applicant filed a petition for divorce with the Warsaw Regional Court requesting that a no-fault divorce be granted. 7.  On 9 January 1994 the court held a reconciliation meeting, but the parties could not reach an agreement. 8.   On 8 February 1994 the applicant’s wife requested the court to award child maintenance against the applicant. 9.  On 28 March 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court held the first hearing in the case. The applicant modified his claim and requested that the divorce be based on the fault of both parties. 10.  On 15 April 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court, by way of an interim order, ruled on the amount of child maintenance to be paid to the applicant’s daughter, born in 1981. 11.  On 9 May 1994 a hearing was held. On the same date the Warsaw Regional Court issued an interim order determining the manner in which the applicant and his wife should use their house pending a judgment in the case. 12.  At the hearing of 27 June 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court heard witnesses.
On 8 July 1994 the applicant’s lawyer filed pleadings in which he requested the Warsaw Regional Court to admit evidence from a court expert in sexology in order to establish the cause of the breakdown of the marriage. He also requested that the applicant’s medical records concerning his treatment for sexual problems be admitted as evidence. Apparently these requests were dismissed. 13.  On 11 July 1994 the applicant modified his claim and requested that his wife be declared solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. 14. A hearing was held on 22 August 1994. 15.  By another interim order of 30 August 1994, the Warsaw Regional Court prohibited the applicant from introducing third persons into his house and registering them there as residents. This decision was taken after the applicant’s new partner and mother of his two children (born in 1990 and 1994 respectively) had moved in. The court refused the applicant’s request for a reduction of child maintenance. 16.  On 10 September 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision of 30 August 1994. 17.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant requested an amendment of the decision concerning child maintenance. 18.  On 29 December 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the decision of 30 August 1994 finding that the applicant could not be prevented from registering as residents his own children and their mother. On the same date the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request concerning the amount of maintenance. 19.  A hearing scheduled for 19 June 1995 was adjourned due to the respondent’s illness. 20.  On 20 November 1995 the court held a hearing. The respondent requested an increase of the child maintenance award. The court requested the parties to submit information on their financial situation. 21.  On 5 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court increased the amount of maintenance payable to the applicant’s eldest daughter. Both parties appealed. 22.  On 29 February 1996 the applicant requested the court to supplement the minutes of the hearing of 20 November 1995. His request was refused by the presiding judge as it had been lodged out of time. The applicant’s renewed request of 14 March 1996 was dismissed on 7 May 1996. 23.  On 25 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal increased the amount of child maintenance. 24.  At the hearing of 13 January 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court heard a witness. The applicant’s attorney renewed his request (filed previously in pleadings dated 8 July 1994 and 8 January 1997) to appoint a court expert in sexology. The court decided to admit evidence from experts in sexology and from experts attached to the Family Diagnostic and Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny). On the same day the court decided to request the applicant’s doctor A.S.K. for the medical records on his past treatment for sexual problems. 25.  The expert of the Family Diagnostic and Consultation Centre submitted his opinion on 5 September 1997. The expert in sexology M.U. submitted his reports concerning the respondent and the applicant on 27 November 1997 and 13 March 1998 respectively. 26.  Between 28 May 1997 and 16 January 1998 the court took steps to retrieve the applicant’s medical records which had been lost following the death of the applicant’s doctor A.S.K. 27.  On 8 December 1997 the respondent’s lawyer requested the court not to schedule hearings between 19 February 1998 and 19 March 1998 because she would be on leave on those dates. 28.  At the hearing of 23 March 1998 the parties commented on the experts’ reports. The applicant challenged the competence of the expert M.U. and requested new expert opinions to be commissioned. The court requested M.U. to submit a supplementary report. The respondent requested that the award of maintenance be increased. 29.  On 6 April 1998 the court increased the amount of child maintenance. 30.  On 8 April 1998 the court decided to appoint another expert in sexology. He submitted his opinion on 8 December 1998. 31.  The hearing scheduled for 24 February 1999 was adjourned due to the judge’s illness. 32.  The last hearing before the first-instance court was held on 12 May 1999. The parties presented their final submissions. The respondent for the first time consented to the divorce but demanded that the applicant be declared responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. 33.  The Warsaw Regional Court delivered its judgment on 26 May 1999, finding both parties at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. It further awarded the custody of their daughter to both parties and established her place of residence at her mother’s address. It also fixed a new amount of child maintenance to be paid by the applicant.
Both parties appealed against the judgment. 34.  On 18 October 1999 the applicant requested rectification of the minutes of several hearings held before the first-instance court. On 2 November 1999 the presiding judge refused his request as having been lodged out of time. 35.  On 20 December 1999 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 17 January 2000 the presiding judge refused to entertain the applicant’s appeal. The applicant’s further appeal of 1 March 2000 was rejected on 7 March 2000, the court finding that no appeal lay against this decision. The applicant’s further appeal was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 8 August 2000. 36.  On 8 August 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the parties’ appeals against the judgment of 26 May 1999 and quashed ex-officio rulings in respect of the child who had in the meantime reached the age of majority. The judgment became final on 8 December 2000.