Communicated on 14 March 2019<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 67414\/11
\nDariusz CUPIA\u0141
\nagainst Poland
\nlodged on 19 October 2011<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr DariuszCupia\u0142, is a Polish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Warszawa.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the case<\/p>\n In 1989 the applicant married A. They had three children: M. born in 1991, Z. born in 1994 and J. born in 1996. Both parents have deep religious convictions; the applicant has a PhD in theology.<\/p>\n Towards the end of 2005 A. filed for divorce. About the same time she signed her children up to undergo therapy with a certain Dr L. Subsequently, in February 2006 she moved out from the family house taking the children with her.<\/p>\n On 9 September 2008 the Lublin Regional Court granted a decree of divorce without ascribing blame for the breakdown of the marriage. The court also ruled that parental authority should be exercised by both parents and that the children should reside with the mother.<\/p>\n However, shortly afterwards, the applicant\u2019s eldest daughter M., decided to live with him.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/p>\n On an unknown date in 2006, on the basis of a notification made by A. and a psychological report prepared by Dr L., the Lublin District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged psychological abuse of his children.<\/p>\n During the investigation the prosecutor ordered an opinion from an expert psychologist E.D. In her opinion of 6 March 2007 the expert noted that the applicant had subjected his children to excessive religious practices. She concluded that all the children had shown signs of emotional and personal disorder as a result of \u201clong term psychological abuse by their father\u201d. In particular, she stated that the applicant had prevented his children from being raised in a healthy and stable family. By following his religious \u201cmission\u201d he had caused the children to be raised in a system similar to informal religious groups. The father had impeded the children from fulfilling their basic biological needs by waking them up and restricting their meal times. Moreover, he had prevented the children\u2019s complete intellectual development by imposing [his] religious way of perceiving the world. He had administered punishment hurtful to the children. He had also used his children in order to create a positive image within religious movements and in the media.<\/p>\n The trial before the Lublin District Court began on 16\u00a0October 2007. During the proceedings the court obtained several reports concerning the children (all prepared by the expert psychologist E.D., who had prepared also the opinion of 6 March 2007), psychiatric opinion about the applicant and heard evidence from a number of witnesses, including the applicant\u2019s children.<\/p>\n On 22 July 2010 the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant of psychological abuse of his children on account of the fact that:<\/p>\n \u201c[the applicant] had forced them to practice certain religious rituals and to profess faith in a certain manner in particular by making public confessions during evening prayers in the presence of other people; that he had broken their nightly rest in order to conduct the evening prayers; that he had administered punishment which had hurt their feelings and that he had limited the number of their meals and the meal-times.\u201d<\/p>\n The court sentenced the applicant to one year imprisonment stayed for three years. Basing on E.D\u2019s expert reports, the court found the younger children\u2019s testimony credible. However, the court considered that M.\u2019s testimony, which had been favourable to the applicant, had not been entirely reliable.<\/p>\n The court established that both the applicant and his former wife had deep religious convictions. They had met while being active members of the Life\u2011Light (\u015awiat\u0142oi\u017cycie) Catholic Movement. The applicant was also a member of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement (Odnowa w Duchu\u015awi\u0119tym).<\/p>\n The court found that the applicant had lived his life in accordance with his own religious rules. In particular, he had required that every evening the family met for a common prayer. During that prayer the applicant had read the Bible, the mother had played the guitar and everyone had sang religious hymns. At the end of the prayer the children had had to apologise for their bad behaviour during the day and thus publicly confess to their sins. Often the applicant\u2019s friends and acquaintances form various [catholic] religious movements had taken part in the evening prayers. In those situations the children had been embarrassed to confess their sins in front of people unknown to them. It also had happened that when the applicant had returned home late and the children had already been asleep, he had woken them up in order to conduct the evening prayer.<\/p>\n The court noted that the applicant had on several occasions invited many people, unknown to his then wife and children to stay at his home. Often this had been whole families with small children who had stayed in the applicant\u2019s house for days and even weeks. On those occasions the children had slept on the floor and had given the guests their beds. They had also been asked to give their toys to the visiting children. Often the food that A. had prepared for the family had been given to the guests and the children did not get any.<\/p>\n The court further observed that the applicant had required the whole family to have meals at regular times. The children had not been allowed to have any food between meal times and nothing after 7 p.m. Often when the applicant had returned home late, the family had to eat a cold meal.<\/p>\n In addition, the applicant had forbidden the children to take any telephone calls at home and they had not been allowed to have friends visiting them during his absence.<\/p>\n Initially the applicant had applied some forms of corporal punishment. However, as time went by, he had started having long conversations with his children, as a punishment, in which he had referred to the Bible.<\/p>\n The court concluded that the acts committed by the applicant constituted psychological abuse and had met the statutory definition of domestic violence.<\/p>\n On 25 October 2010 the applicant\u2019s lawyer appealed relying, amongst others, on Article 9 and 6 of the Convention. In particular, he argued that while one can disagree with the applicant\u2019s educational methods there had been no direct intent in his actions. Therefore, his actions should have been examined rather by a family court and not by a criminal court.<\/p>\n He also stated that the court of first-instance had relied only on testimonies of unfavourable witnesses and had not accepted evidence given by other witnesses in particular the applicant\u2019s eldest daughter M.<\/p>\n Lastly, he submitted that the district court had disregarded the fact that the allegations about psychological abuse had surfaced after the first hearing in the divorce proceedings and that A. had begun a relationship with a certain E.M. when she had still been married to the applicant. In that respect the applicant complained that the district court had failed to summon, of its own motion, E.M. as a witness.<\/p>\n On 25 February 2011 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the first-instance conviction. The court held that the district court had correctly assessed the evidence and established the facts of the case.<\/p>\n The court observed that while everyone had the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the State should respect the right of parents to ensure education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions the applicant\u2019s behaviour could not have been explained as an exercise of religious practice.<\/p>\n It further held that, notwithstanding the parents\u2019 right to educate their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical background, one should distinguish situations, actions and behaviours of the parents\/guardians which were illegal, debasing and harmful to the children. Waking the children up at night and forcing them to pray, forcing them to publicly confess their sins and apologise the father in front of other people could not have been explained by the applicant\u2019s religious convictions.<\/p>\n In view of the facts established by the court of first-instance it is clear that the applicant had committed acts of psychological abuse of his children. As a consequence of his actions the children had developed emotional and personal disorders and displayed aversion to the Catholic Church in general and to religious practices.<\/p>\n The judgment is final.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n The Criminal Code of 1997 specifically addresses domestic violence cases. Article 207 \u00a7 1 of that code provides as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cWhoever mentally or physically mistreats a person close to him, or another person being in a permanent or temporary state of dependence to the perpetrator, a minor, or a person who is vulnerable because of his mental or physical condition, shall be subjected to a term of imprisonment between three months and five years.\u201d<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he submitted that (i) the domestic courts failed to examine letters supporting the applicant sent by his children; (ii) they also failed to obtain evidence from E.M (the applicant\u2019s ex-wife\u2019s new partner); (iii) the courts relied primarily on evidence from unfavourable witnesses and disregarded evidence given by the applicant\u2019s daughter M.; (iv) the principle of equality of arms was violated, because he was in an unequal position in comparison to the prosecution; (v) the courts failed to perform a thorough analysis of the presented evidence; (vi) evidentiary motions submitted by the applicant\u2019s defence lawyer were repeatedly dismissed.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his parenting methods did not constitute psychological abuse and were not harmful to his children.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 9 of the Convention he alleges that his religious beliefs were a reason for his criminal conviction.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention he argues that his conviction in essence constituted discrimination on grounds of religion.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the applicant complains in substance that he was prevented from raising his children in accordance with his religious beliefs.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? In particular, did the way in which the courts took and evaluated evidence was in compliance with the fair trial requirements?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant\u2019s conviction for psychological abuse of his children on account of having subjected them to allegedly excessive religious practices amount to:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0A violation of the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Vojnity v.\u00a0Hungary, no.\u00a029617\/07, 12 February 2013 and contrast Tlapak and Others v.\u00a0Germany, nos. 11308\/16 and 11344\/16<\/a>, 22 March 2018)?<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0A violation of the applicant\u2019s freedom of thought or religion, contrary to Article\u00a09 of the Convention?<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0Discrimination on the ground of the applicant\u2019s religious convictions, contrary to Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention?<\/p>\n (d)\u00a0\u00a0A breach of the applicant\u2019s right under Article\u00a02 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to have his children educated in conformity with his religious convictions (see, mutatis mutandis, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v.\u00a0Denmark, 7\u00a0December 1976, Series A no. 23)?<\/p>\n