BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KATA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 9590/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 July 2009
This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kata v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 June 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 9590/06) 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, Mr Stanisław Kata (“the
applicant”), on 28 February 2006.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged that on account of the excessive court fees
required from him for proceeding with his appeal, he had been
deprived of access to a court for the determination of his civil
rights.
- On 10
July 2008 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to
give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention to the Government. It was also decided to examine the
merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility
(Article 29 § 3).
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Lubin.
A. Background to the case
- In
1973 he had a car accident.
- On
28 February 1977 the Lubin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
granted the applicant a life disability pension payable by the
insurer, Polish Insurance Establishment (Polski Zakład
Ubezpieczeń), in the amount of 1,000 old Polish zlotys a
month.
- The
insurer did not pay the applicant's disability pension for the years
1995 to 2000. Following a complaint by the applicant in 2000, the
insurer paid him the amount of 30.94 Polish zlotys (PLN), which at
the relevant time was the equivalent of 7.50 euros. The applicant
unsuccessfully requested several times that his pension be index
linked.
B. Civil proceedings
- On
30 September 2004 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the
insurer. He sought the indexed pension for the years 1995-2000. The
value of his claim amounted to PLN 30,480.
- On
15 October 2004 the applicant requested the court to exempt him from
the court fee.
- On
20 November 2004 he rectified the procedural shortcomings of his
request. He submitted a declaration of means, pursuant to
Article 113 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego). The relevant part of
that declaration read as follows:
“I am married. My wife receives a disability
pension of PLN 500 a month. I receive a disability pension of PLN
1,300 a month.
We have our three biological grandchildren, to whom we
are foster parents, to support. The grandchildren are 3, 8 and 18
years of age and the oldest grandchild is still at school.
Our constant monthly expenses are:
- rent – PLN 320,
- water – PLN 100,
- electricity – PLN 120,
- gas – PLN 70,
- television – PLN 80,
- telephone – PLN 90,
-medicaments – PLN 120.
I do not have any shares or securities or any savings. I
do not have a car or any other property of financial value.
In my opinion payment of the court fees will entail a
substantial reduction in my and my family's standard of living.”
- On
4 December 2004 the applicant completed his declaration of means
submitting that he received a disability pension of PLN 1, 383.33,
his wife received a disability pension of PLN 537.93 and as foster
family for their three grandchildren they received a financial
benefit of PLN 2,049.40.
- On
14 December 2004 the applicant was granted an exemption from court
fees exceeding the amount of PLN 1,200 for his claim. The entire fee
amounted to PLN 2,233.60. The applicant did not appeal against
that decision and paid the required amount.
- On
5 May 2005 the Legnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
gave judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim for compensation.
- On
17 June 2005 the applicant appealed against the first-instance
judgment.
- On
1 July 2005 he requested an exemption from the court fees in the
appellate proceedings. The fees amounted to PLN 2,234.
- On
12 July 2005 the Legnica Regional Court granted him an exemption from
court fees exceeding PLN 1,000.
- On
12 July 2005 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie)
against that decision.
- On
27 July 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd
Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal. The relevant part of the Court
of Appeal's reasoning read as follows:
“The Court found that, although the income
received by the applicant and his wife was not high, they should,
however, when lodging an appeal, have been aware that they would have
to pay the court fee, and should have made the necessary savings in
advance. The court's view could not be altered by the fact that the
applicant and his wife were a foster family for their 3
grandchildren. A party seeking his or her claim in a court should
limit other expenses.”
- On
28 September 2005 the Legnica Regional Court discontinued the
appellate proceedings.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of
practice are set out in paragraphs 23-33 of the judgment delivered by
the Court on 19 June 2001 in the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no.
28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; see also the judgment delivered by the Court
on 26 July 2005 in the case of Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland,
no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that his right of
access to a court for the determination of his civil rights had been
infringed through the requirement that he pay an excessive amount in
court fees in order to be allowed to proceed with his appeal. The
relevant part of Article 6 § 1 provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ...
tribunal established by law. ...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
1. The Government's objection regarding non-compliance
with the six month rule
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's application was lodged on
28 February 2006 whereas the final decision in his case had been
given on 27 July 2005. Therefore the applicant had failed to
comply with the six-month rule.
- The
applicant did not comment.
- The
Court recalls its practice adopted in its previous judgments
concerning Polish access to court cases (see, for example, Polejowski
v. Poland, no. 38399/03, 4 March 2008 and Kozłowski
v. Poland, no. 23779/02, 23 January 2007). In these
judgments the Court, although not expressly, considered that the
relevant date for calculation of the six month time-limit was the
date of a final decision by which the domestic court returned the
statement of claim or the appeal to the applicant on account of the
applicant's failure to pay the required court fees. This approach is
justified by the fact that the decision by which the domestic court
refuses the requests for exemption or grants partial exemption is
followed by the court's request sent to the applicant to pay the
required amount of court fees within seven days. Only if the
applicant fails to pay the court fees within the time-limit specified
is the statement of claim (or the appeal) returned to the applicant,
and it is that which constitutes the final decision in a case.
The
Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning adopted in the
above-mentioned cases.
- Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the
Court notes that the application was lodged on 28 February 2006. The
final decision, by which the Legnica Regional Court discontinued the
relevant proceedings had been given on 28 September 2005. The
application was accordingly introduced within six months of the date
of the final decision.
- For
these reasons, the Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground
of non-compliance with the six-month rule must be dismissed.
2. The Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all
available domestic remedies. He had failed to lodge an interlocutory
appeal against the Legnica Regional Court's decision of 14 December
2004 by which he was granted partial exemption from court fees
exceeding the amount of PLN 1,200 for his claim (see paragraph 14,
above).
- The
applicant did not comment.
- The
Court notes that the decision referred to by the Government was given
by the court of first instance and that the applicant paid the
required court fees in the amount of PLN 1,200 for the proceedings
before the first instance court. The present application concerns the
alleged denial of the applicant's access to a court, on appeal, by
the Legnica Regional Court's decision of 12 July 2005 granting the
applicant partial exemption from court fees exceeding the amount of
PLN 1,000 (see paragraph 18, above). The applicant appealed against
that decision. His appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Wrocław
Court of Appeal.
Therefore,
in the Court's view, the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies
available to contest the findings of the domestic courts which are
the object of the present application.
For
these reasons, the Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground
of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
3. Conclusion as to admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
- The
applicant maintained that the sum required from him for proceeding
with his appeal had been excessive and disproportionate to his means,
even after partial exemption.
- The
applicant concluded that his right of access to a court had been
breached.
(b) The Government
- The
Government firstly recapitulated the general rules concerning
exemption from court fees.
- They
secondly noted that the court fees were calculated with reference to
the value of the claim and appeal.
- They
further stressed that the domestic courts took into account the
applicant's difficult financial situation and granted the applicant
an exemption from about 53% of the fees required from him for his
claim and from about 45% for his appeal. In their opinion, the
requested sum had not been excessive since the applicant had a source
of income and could have made the necessary savings.
- They
maintained that the decisions of the domestic authorities which
assessed the applicant's liability to pay court fees had not been
disproportionate or arbitrary bearing in mind the applicant's
financial status and the value of his claim: PLN 30,480.
- In
sum, the Government invited the Court to find that there had been no
violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
2. The Court's assessment
(a) Principles deriving from the Court's
case law
- The
Court observes that in its judgment in Kreuz v. Poland
(cited above, § 60) it dealt with the question whether the
requirement to pay substantial fees to civil courts in connection
with claims could be regarded as a restriction on the right of access
to a court.
- In
this connection the Court held that the amount of the fees assessed
in the light of the particular circumstances of a given case,
including the applicant's ability to pay them, and the stage of the
proceedings at which that restriction had been imposed were factors
which were material in determining whether or not a person had
enjoyed his right of access and had “a ... hearing by [a]
tribunal”.
(b) Application of the above principles to
the present case
- The
Court will now determine whether, in the particular circumstances of
the present case, the fees actually required constituted a
restriction that impaired the very essence of the applicant's right
of access to a court.
- The
Court firstly notes that the case concerned indexation of the
applicant's disability pension and that the value of the claim
amounted to PLN 30,480 in compensation. The court fees which he was
required to pay were determined as a fraction of the value of the
claim, namely the amount of compensation sought.
- The
Court observes that the court fees for the proceedings before the
first-instance court amounted to PLN 2,233 and that the applicant was
first ordered to pay PLN 1,200. Thus he was granted a partial
exemption of about 47%. The court fee in the appellate proceedings
was PLN 2,234 and the applicant was ordered to pay PLN 1,000. Thus he
was granted a partial exemption of about 55% (see paragraphs 14 and
18, above). The applicant's and his wife's monthly income,
even without taking into consideration the social benefit which they
received as foster parents for their grandchildren, amounted to PLN
1,921.26.
- The
Court further observes that the applicant and his wife had a source
of permanent income, even though the income was small.
- Consequently,
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
the Court is of the opinion that it does not appear that in
the present case the domestic courts' approach when assessing the
applicant's financial situation and his ability to pay the fees was
arbitrary or discriminatory. On the contrary, it is plain that the
domestic courts carefully examined the applicant's financial
situation and the extent to which he could realistically be expected
to contribute to the costs of his appeal. In the circumstances, it is
not for the Court to controvert those findings.
- For
the above reasons, the Court concludes that the refusal to exempt the
applicant from the fees for lodging his appeal was not a
disproportionate restriction on his right of access to a court.
- It
accordingly finds that there has been no violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
