CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF PASLAVIČIUS v.   LITHUANIA (Application no. 15152/18)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicant ordered, as the losing party, to pay his former employer’s legal costs in proceedings contesting the lawfulness of disciplinary penalties and his dismissal • Convention requirements of access to court handled properly by domestic courts • Applicant, a lawyer, afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his cases effectively • Court unable to find that legal assistance to his former employer of such a degree that it could have given rise to unfairness • No breach of the right to equality of arms   STRASBOURG 18 July 2023   FINAL   18/10/2023     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Paslavičius v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   15152/18) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Tadas Paslavičius (“the applicant”), on 21   March 2018; the decision to give notice to the Lithuanian Government (“the   Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s right of access to a court, under Article   6 §   1 if the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s complaint, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regarding the alleged impairment of his right of access to a court on account of the domestic courts’ decisions to order him to pay his former employer’s legal costs during litigation concerning disciplinary penalties and the applicant’s dismissal from his employment. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Vilnius. He was represented by Mr E. Šriupša, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   K.   Bubnytė ‑ Širmenė. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5 .     As noted by the applicant in his submissions to the administrative courts (see paragraph   26 below), on 12   June 2013 the applicant began working – having been assigned the employment grade of A10 – in the legal and personnel administration department of the Trakai district municipal administration ( Trakų rajono savivaldybės administracijos Juridinio ir personalo administravimo skyrius ) as a senior legal specialist ( vyriausiasis [teisės krypties] specialistas ). In August 2015 the Trakai municipality reorganised its legal and personnel department, and established the legal, personnel and public procurement department ( Teisės, personalo ir viešųjų pirkimų skyrius ), wherein the applicant continued to work. On 30   December 2016 he was dismissed from his position, on the ground that his position had become redundant (see also paragraphs   18-23 below). 6 .     On 9   October 2015 the Trakai municipality concluded a legal-services agreement with a law firm, in which A.P. – an advocate – was a partner, to provide the municipal administration with legal services – legal consultations, drafting legal and procedural documents, and representing the municipality in court proceedings. The Government provided the Court with the Trakai Region District Court’s ruling of 17   March 2016, which noted that A.P. had represented the Trakai municipality in those court proceedings, which were related to the lawfulness of dismissal of the municipality’s driver, L.P., by a decision of 7   July 2015 issued by the municipality. The proceedings regarding the applicant’s disciplinary penalty and related PROCEEDINGS REGARDING legal costs The proceedings regarding the disciplinary penalty 7 .     By order no.   K3-105 of 14   April 2016, issued by the director of the Trakai district municipality administration (hereinafter also “the Trakai municipality”), a disciplinary penalty – a strict reprimand – was imposed on the applicant for insulting and harassing one of his colleagues, Ms   X, actions that had continued for some time (see also paragraphs   41-44 below). 8 .     The applicant then initiated court proceedings seeking to annul that disciplinary penalty. The Trakai municipality, which was represented by advocate A.P., submitted a response, asking that the applicant’s complaint be dismissed. The applicant afterwards revised his complaint, adding a request to be awarded, 650 (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, which he assessed as loss of his time spent when drafting the complaint to court. The Trakai municipality then submitted a response to the applicant’s revised complaint. On 1   February 2017 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court – having examined the case in a public hearing, with the participation of the applicant, and advocate A.P., and having heard witnesses and examined written evidence – found that the municipality’s disciplinary commission had correctly established the factual circumstances in respect of the applicant’s offensive behavior. The applicant’s complaint regarding the annulment of order no.   K3-105 was dismissed. Subsequently the applicant attempted to lodge an appeal, and the municipality submitted a response, but by a final ruling of 28   April 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court established that the applicant had failed to lodge his appeal within the prescribed time-limit. The follow-up proceedings for legal costs 9 .     In respect of the above-mentioned proceedings, on 12   May 2017 the Trakai municipality lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court for the reimbursement of legal costs, in view of the fact that that court’s decision of 1   February 2017 had come into force (see paragraph 8 above). The municipality wished to recover EUR   1,016 in fees paid to A.P. for the drafting of the response to the applicant’s complaint, EUR   381 in fees paid to A.P. for the municipality’s representation in court, and EUR   398 for in fees paid to A.P. for the drafting of the response to the separate complaint lodged by the applicant with the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant submitted a response, arguing that the municipality’s claim was unlawful, and that the expenses requested were disproportionate. He further argued, inter alia , that (i) the municipality had had a sufficient number of employees who were lawyers and who could have represented it, (ii) the case had not been complex, and (iii) at that time the applicant was unemployed (see paragraph   20 below), and – except for the money that he received in unemployment benefit, which amounted to only a few hundred euros, had no money by means of which to reimburse the municipality with the sum that it had requested in legal costs. 10 .     On 16   August 2017 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly granted the Trakai municipality’s claim for the reimbursement of legal costs. The court noted that, under the relevant legal regulation, at the relevant time the maximum fee that could have been paid to an advocate for drafting a response to the complaint had been EUR   1,870; however, the sum the defendant requested by the municipality, EUR   1,016, was even lower. Regarding the expenses in respect of the municipality’s representation in the court hearing, the duration of the time spent by the advocate in court had amounted to no more than four hours; thus, the advocate’s maximum fee could only have been a maximum of EUR   317, instead of the EUR   381 sought by the municipality. Lastly, according to the Supreme Administrative Court’s case-law, the question of the reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by the parties to a case before the first-instance or the appellate court had to be dealt with by the respective court. Accordingly, the municipality’s request for the reimbursement of EUR   398 for the drafting of the response to the applicant’s separate complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court was referred to the latter court. 11 .     The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the fact that the Trakai municipality had had in-house lawyers had not prevented the municipality from hiring an (external) advocate to argue its case in court. The municipality had had discretion to choose how to defend its rights. In the case in question, the dispute had arisen between the Trakai municipality and its employee; thus, in the court’s view, the fact that the municipality had hired an advocate to represent it in that kind of case had been justifiable. Moreover, the case file had been voluminous – it had contained three volumes of documents, and the municipality’s employees had been questioned as witnesses. The court also noted the applicant’s conduct, and the fact that the municipality had had to respond to the applicant’s revised complaint and had thus incurred additional expenses. The court took into account the fact that the applicant was unemployed, which had constituted the basis of the decision, in the interests of justice, reasonableness and fairness, to reduce the amount to be recovered from the applicant to EUR   1,000. That being so, the court also observed that even if at the time of the events in question the applicant had not been earning income from work, he was of working age and had a university degree in law, and would therefore be able to earn income in future and to repay the aforementioned legal costs. 12 .     The applicant then lodged a separate complaint against the first ‑ instance court’s decision regarding the award of legal costs, reiterating his previous arguments. 13 .     By a final ruling of 21   September 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s separate complaint, to which the municipality had submitted a response, against the Vilnius Regional Court’s decision of 16   August 2017, leaving that decision unchanged. The Supreme Administrative Court referred to the guidelines set out in its ruling of AS 143 -375/2008 (see paragraphs   49-52 below). Regarding the instant case, the Supreme Administrative Court observed that the dispute had arisen between the Trakai municipality and its employee, and that the disciplinary penalty had been imposed on the applicant for his behavior towards another employee of the municipality. During the proceedings before the first ‑ instance court, the employees of the municipality, including the head of the department in which applicant worked, had been interviewed as witnesses. Given the circumstances, the first-instance court had rightly held that representation by an advocate, when conducting such kind of case, was justifiable. At the same time, the fact that the applicant was not represented by an advocate did not amount to a breach of the principle of equality of arms, given the fact that the proceedings had been initiated by the applicant himself. Moreover, as the applicant had noted in his separate complaint, while working in the Trakai municipality he had regularly represented it as the defendant before courts as a qualified lawyer and had won almost all the cases in respect of which he had acted. 14 .     Further, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the fee for the drafting of the response to the applicant’s complaint, for which the municipality had asked to be reimbursed, was nearly two times lower than the maximum fee provided in the Recommendations (see paragraph   47 below). The first-instance court took into account the applicant’s difficult financial situation and reduced the sum of the expenses to be recovered; the first-instance court’s calculations had been correct. The applicant’s arguments regarding the size of his salary when he had worked at the municipality did not alter the fact that the municipality had actually incurred legal costs. Thus, the panel of judges found that there had been no basis to reduce the expenses even further. 15 .     On 27   September 2017 the Trakai municipality lodged a claim with the Supreme Administrative Court, asking to be reimbursed the costs, in the amount of EUR   381, that it had incurred in drafting the response to the applicant’s separate complaint (see paragraph   12 above), given that the ruling of 21   September 2017 had become final (see paragraphs   13 and 14 above). On 18   October 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the municipality’s claim for costs in part, lowering it to EUR   327, that sum having been based on the calculations as to maximum sum to recover for drafting response to the separate complaint pursuant to Regulations (see paragraph 47 below). 16 .     On 25   October 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court adopted the ruling regarding the reimbursement of the defendant’s expenses incurred in drafting the response to the applicant’s separate complaint (see paragraph 10 in fine ). The Supreme Administrative Court referred to Article   40 §§   1 and 5 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings (see paragraph 45 below) and held that the Trakai municipality was entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses it had incurred in securing representation by an advocate. Nevertheless, although the municipality asked for EUR   398 by way of reimbursement for its legal costs, those costs having been substantiated by documents, in accordance with the Recommendations (see paragraph   47 below), the maximum fee for drafting a response to a separate complaint was EUR   317. Moreover, the subject matter of the separate complaint was not complicated, and no questions regarding the interpretation and application of law had raised; accordingly, the court fixed EUR   150 as an adequate sum to be afforded by way of reimbursement of the municipality’s costs. 17 .     As summarised by the Government in their observations, the applicant subsequently lodged several new requests with the Supreme Administrative Court. Firstly, he asked that court to reopen court proceedings regarding the award of EUR   150 for legal costs (see paragraph 16 above), but on 8   March 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the applicant’s arguments were related to the application of procedural rather than substantive rules of law, but that the lodging of a request for the reopening of proceedings regarding a procedural decision that had settled the issues of reimbursement of legal costs was not provided for in law. Secondly, in March 2018 the applicant lodged a request with the Supreme Administrative Court, asking it to explain how the court ruling of 25   October 2017 (see paragraph 16 above) should be executed; however, on 8   May 2018 that court refused the applicant’s request, holding that the operative part of the ruling of 25   October 2017 was clear, understandable and unambiguous. The applicant’s dismissal and proceedings regarding its lawfulness 18 .     On 26   October 2016 the Trakai municipality adopted decision no.   P2 ‑ 1127 annulling the applicant’s senior legal specialist’s post (grade A10) (for the basis of the decision, see the municipality’s explanation in paragraph   22 below). 19 .     On 27   October 2016 the municipality informed the applicant in writing that, if by 30   December 2016 he had not been appointed to other duties, he would be dismissed. 20 .     On 28   December 2016 the Trakai municipality adopted decision no.   K3-303 dismissing the applicant from his post as of 30   December 2016. 21 .     The applicant started administrative court proceedings seeking his reinstatement and compensation for pecuniary damage, in the form of unpaid salary, and for non-pecuniary damage. 22 .     Responding to the applicant’s claim, the Trakai municipality explained that the decision of 26   October 2016 (see paragraph   18 above) had been adopted after it had taken into account the situation in the legal, personnel and public procurement department, how busy the legal specialists of that department were: the lawyers of that department had not worked full time; after the laws on construction and territorial planning had been amended, the number of cases relating to the application of those laws had been reduced; similarly, the number of cases regarding the removal of tenants from municipal housing had diminished, as had the number of cases concerning the privatisation of municipal property; the number of inhabitants applying to the municipal administration for primary legal aid had also diminished. As a result, there had been a need to optimise the activities of the department, and to save budgetary resources. It could be seen from the descriptions of the duties of the department’s specialists that essentially all the functions of the applicant could [from that time on] be performed and were being performed by the department’s other legal specialists. 23 .     The municipal administration also noted that the decision of 26   October 2016 had been taken by the relevant authority – the director of municipal administration, such matters being within his remit. The director had an obligation to consider questions such as how to optimise the department’s work and to raise effectiveness, including how to properly use human and financial resources. After the applicant’s dismissal, only several cases – one civil case and one administrative case, which the applicant had not seen to its conclusion, had remained to be dealt with by the department. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court 24 .     By a decision of 12   April 2017, having held an oral hearing the participation of advocate A.P., who represented the Trakai municipality, and of the applicant, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that the annulment of the applicant’s post had been real, lawful and well-founded. No unlawful actions on the part of the Trakai municipality had been established. 25 .     The applicant appealed, contesting lawfulness of his dismissal. The Trakai municipality responded, contesting the applicant’s submissions, and reiterating the arguments regarding the department’s reduced workload prior to the applicant’s dismissal (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above). The final ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court 26 .     On 3   August 2017, in written proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and left the first ‑ instance court’s decision unchanged. On the basis of the material contained in the case-file, the court shared the lower court’s assessment that there were no grounds for holding that the annulment of the applicant’s post had been fictitious – the result of a conflict between the applicant and the mayor and the director of administration, as the applicant had claimed. Both the municipality, when responding to the lawsuit, and the applicant, in his supplementary observations of 17   July 2017, “essentially acknowledged” that part of the applicant’s functions were being performed by the remaining employees of his former department. Accordingly, it was true that in reality those functions could be performed by a lesser number of personnel than before the annulment of the applicant’s post. The current state of affairs confirmed that the reorganisation had been genuine. The Supreme Administrative Court also found that the organisation of that work had been within the municipality’s purview. The circumstances of the case, assessed on the basis of the documents in the case file, allowed the conclusion that, in annulling the applicant’s post, the municipality had “essentially optimised the department’s work”. 27 .     Besides, there was no dispute that on   27 October 2016 the applicant had been warned that his post was to be abolished by the end of that year, and that, should he not be appointed to new duties by that date, he would be dismissed from his post (see paragraphs   18 and 19 above). There was also no dispute about the fact that on 22   December 2016 the Trakai municipality had informed the applicant of other posts in the municipal administration that had been vacant at that time: the only unoccupied posts that had then been available were that of (i) the deputy head of the legal, personnel and public procurement department – an A11 grade post (that is, one grade higher than that of the applicant’s post), and (ii) a senior specialist in the environmental and public order department (an A9 grade) – which had required a university degree in biomedicine, a qualification that the applicant had not possessed. The guarantees set out in Article   43 §   1 of the Law on Civil Service (see paragraph   48 below) had therefore not been applicable in the applicant’s case. 28 .     Lastly, the first-instance court had correctly assessed that there had been no unlawful actions on the part of the municipal administration in annulling the applicant’s post and dismissing him. Accordingly, there was no basis to grant the applicant’s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The follow-up proceedings regarding the municipality’s legal costs 29 .     After the final ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of 3   August 2017 (see paragraphs   26-28 above), the Trakai municipality lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court for the reimbursement of the litigation costs that it had incurred in relation to the court proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s dismissal (see paragraphs   21-28 above). The municipality sought compensation in the amount of EUR   1,694 – the sum that it had paid to A.P., the advocate, for his services in that regard. The applicant objected to that request, arguing, among other, that the municipality had had enough lawyers on its payroll and that the case had not been complex enough to have required an advocate’s participation. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court 30 .     By a ruling of 26   September 2017 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court upheld the municipality’s request in part. The court noted that questions regarding the reimbursement of legal costs were regulated by Article 40   §§   1 and 5 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings, and that the party that had won the case had the right to be reimbursed for its legal costs, including the costs of representation by an advocate (see paragraph   45 below). The reimbursement of legal costs was also regulated by Article   98 of the Code of Civil Proceedings and by the Recommendations (see paragraphs 46 and 47 below). In the applicant’s case, the municipality had been represented by A.P., with whom a contract for legal representation had been concluded. The requested sum of EUR   1,694 was supported by documents. 31 .     The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court then cited the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court (ruling of 25   September 2008 no.   AS 143 -375/2008, which held that a public administration entity’s status as a party to proceedings, in and of itself, did not restrict its entitlement to the reimbursement of legal costs; a public administrative entity could be entitled to recover the costs of legal representation in court proceedings where representation in court was necessary for the effective defence of the interests of the State or a municipality (see paragraph   51 below). Referring to the information posted on the Trakai municipality’s Internet site, the court noted that its legal, personnel and public procurement department had six senior specialists, one of whom had been on special leave, and a head of department. It followed that the municipality had had internal personnel capacity and had been able to defend its interests. Even so, when assessing the need for an advocate in the instant case, the court had regard to the voluminous nature of the complaint and of the revised complaint that included detailed analysis of the dispute and raised significant number of questions, together with the sheer complexity of the case. The court thus found that the internal capacity of the municipality had not been sufficient for the effective conduct of the defence, and the assistance of an advocate had been necessary. 32 .     When assessing the maximum amount for legal costs to be awarded against the applicant, the court observed that the case had originated in an employment relationship, and that the Supreme Administrative Court’s case ‑ law, to which the municipality referred in its response, in respect of such cases was well-established. Accordingly, the court reduced by 50% the amount that could be reimbursed in respect of costs incurred in respect of drafting the reply to the lawsuit. The court further considered that the advocate had become familiar with the case while drafting the reply to the lawsuit, and had thus reduced the hours needed to prepare for the court hearing from four to two. The court also made the calculations according to the Recommendations, and, on the basis of the criteria of justice, reasonableness and fairness, concluded that the amount to be recovered from the applicant was EUR   904. The Supreme Administrative Court 33 .     The applicant appealed, lodging a separate complaint regarding the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s ruling of 26   September 2017 (see paragraphs   30-32 above). He asked that the municipality’s request for the reimbursement of legal costs be refused; failing that, he asked that the expenses to be covered be significantly lowered. The applicant argued that his dismissal had been based on redundancy, and that it had therefore been unreasonable for the municipality to hire an advocate for those court proceedings. He also argued that at that time he had been unemployed and that, even if he had been working, the awarded sum would be equal to twice his monthly salary; the awarded sum was therefore excessive. Lastly, he stated that since his monthly salary during his employment at the municipality had been around EUR   480, he had not been able to afford to hire an advocate, whereas the municipality, even though it had had a large administrative apparatus, had hired one. This had put the parties on an unequal footing in the court proceedings. 34 .     By a final ruling of 18   October 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court partly upheld the applicant’s separate complaint. The court observed that, when assessing the question of litigation expenses, one had to bear in mind the principle of “loser pays”, which had been established by Article   40   §   1 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings (see paragraph   45 below). In the applicant’s case, the court decision had been taken in the municipality’s favour; there was thus a legal basis for awarding legal representation costs against the applicant (Article   40 §§   1 and 5 of that Law). The right to avail oneself of legal assistance provided by an advocate was one of the essential elements that guaranteed the right to a judicial remedy ( teisė į teisminę gynybą ). Professional legal representation in administrative cases was meant not only to assist the parties to properly express their position and provide legal arguments, it was also part of the system by which justice was implemented. Accordingly, each party to administrative proceedings had the possibility to choose whether it would conduct the proceedings itself or with an assistance of an advocate, and the Law on Administrative Proceedings did not limit the right of parties to administrative proceedings to avail themselves of an advocate for the purposes of the hearing of the case in court. Lastly, by the above-mentioned ruling no.   AS 143 -375/2008 the Supreme Administrative Court had already held that the reimbursement of the costs of a public administration entity’s legal representation by the party that had lost the case was possible (see paragraph   51 below). 35 .     The case at hand concerned an employment dispute between the administration of a municipality and a person who had been dismissed from serving in that administration. The first-instance court received a large number of documents concerning the structural reform of the municipality’s administration; all of those documents were assessed by the court in terms of the application of law. The applicant revised the complaint several times, and raised a number of procedural issues, such as the involvement of new parties to the proceedings. The court deemed that given the circumstances, the assistance of an advocate during the conduct of the case was justified. The fact that the applicant was not represented by an advocate did not lead to the breach of the principle of equality of arms in this case, given that the court proceedings had been initiated by the applicant himself, and, moreover, the applicant had had a legal education. The first-instance court had also properly calculated the advocate’s fees, according to the rules set out in the Recommendations (see paragraph   47 below). 36 .     Referring to its own case-law, the court lastly noted that litigation costs to be reimbursed by the losing party in a case could be reduced, should that party be facing financial difficulties. Having regard to the principles of justice, reasonableness and fairness, as well as the difficult financial situation of the applicant, the court reduced to EUR 700 the sum to be reimbursed, by way of covering the litigation costs incurred by the Trakai municipality. The applicant’s attempt to have his case reopened and additional court fees ordered to be paid by the applicant 37 .     As noted by the Government, on 3   November 2017 the applicant lodged a request with the Supreme Administrative Court, asking it to reopen the administrative court proceedings regarding his dismissal. Later that month he submitted to the court additional evidence allegedly proving that his dismissal from his employment had been unlawful. In December 2017 the Trakai municipality submitted a reply to the applicant’s request; subsequently the applicant submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court additional evidence aimed at strengthening his argument that the case should be reopened. On 12   December 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be reopened. 38 .     In that connection, following the Supreme Administrative Court’s final ruling of 12   December 2017, on 27   December 2017 the Trakai municipality lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a claim that it be reimbursed for the legal costs that it had incurred (EUR 1,863) owing to A.P. having drafted the reply to the applicant’s request regarding the reopening of the proceedings (see paragraph   37 above). In response, the applicant pleaded that the municipality could have availed itself of the legal assistance of its in ‑ house lawyers, rather than hiring a “well-paid advocate” ( brangiai apmokamas advokatas ) to draft the response to the applicant’s request for the reopening of the proceedings, and that the sum claimed was unjustifiably high. 39 .     On 21   February 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld in part the municipality’s request for reimbursement: when calculated according to the Recommendations and according to the Supreme Administrative Court’s practice, the fee for drafting the reply to the applicant’s request regarding the reopening of the proceedings could be no higher than EUR   335; thus, the sum requested was too high. Moreover, during the main proceedings regarding lawfulness of the applicant’s dismissal the Supreme Administrative Court had already noted that (i) the case was linked to an employment dispute, (ii) the courts’ practice in such cases was clear, (iii) the legal questions concerned were not novel, and (iv) the applicant’s financial situation was dire; on those grounds the court lowered the sum awarded [for litigation costs] by 50 per cent (see paragraph   32 above). Therefore, in respect of the present claim, the court concluded that the applicant should cover EUR   168 of the costs incurred by the Trakai municipality. Other proceedings instituted by the applicant 40 .     In their observations of 6   March 2020, the Government further referred to several other proceedings involving the applicant. Those included the case where, by a final ruling of 24   April 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled, as factually unfounded, a disciplinary penalty (reprimand) ( pastaba ) imposed on the applicant on 18   November 2015, for not having submitted, on the Trakai municipality’s behalf, a response to a lawsuit in labour litigation. As pleaded by the applicant, labour disputes at the municipality “nearly always” were outsourced to (external) advocates. Similarly, by a final ruling of 20   July 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled another disciplinary penalty (strict reprimand) for improper performance of his duties, imposed on the applicant on 18   May 2016. In those two proceedings the Trakai municipality was represented by A.P., the advocate. 41 .     The Government also referred to the fact that in March 2016 the applicant had been fined by the police for publicly insulting his work colleague, Ms   X., at the premises of the Trakai municipality, that fine having been upheld by courts at two levels of jurisdiction in 2016. 42 .     In another set of proceedings, by a decision delivered by the Vilnius City District Court on 31 January 2018, which on 8 January 2019 was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court, a claim for defamation lodged by the applicant against a former colleague at the Trakai municipality, Ms   X., was dismissed. The courts observed that the applicant’s disrespectful and inappropriate behavior towards his former colleague had occurred over some time, and that for that reason he had been given a strict reprimand (see also paragraphs   7 and 8 above). The Vilnius City District Court also ordered the applicant to pay EUR 1,198 to Ms   X. by way of reimbursing her for the costs that she had incurred in connection with the defamation proceedings. 43 .     In that connection (see paragraph 42 above), the applicant asked that the payment of those costs be deferred: he noted that on 21   January 2019 he had begun a new job, and that his net salary was between EUR 540 and EUR   580, and that he owed other sums of money to other parties totaling EUR 2,700, which were now being sought through legal means ( vykdomi išieškojimai ). The applicant’s former colleague Ms   X. asked that the applicant’s request be refused, as she had borrowed the money to cover the costs that she had incurred during the defamation proceedings. By a decision delivered on 21   May 2019 by the Vilnius City District Court, which on 18   July 2019 was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court, the applicant’s request for a deferment was dismissed. The courts emphasised that the applicant had lodged an unfounded claim for defamation, and that as a result his former colleague had been obliged to seek the assistance of an advocate. It was in the colleague’s interests that she be compensated for the legal costs incurred by her as soon as possible. The courts also observed that the applicant was young and healthy and that he could therefore seek a job that was better paid. The fact that the applicant had not availed himself of all possible means of increasing his income could not justify the honest party to the proceedings – the applicant’s former colleague – having to suffer financially. In any case, all of his above-mentioned unpaid debts [in respect of legal costs] that were now being pursued through legal channels had been a consequence of the applicant’s own actions – that is to say they were a result of court decisions that had not been in his favour. The enforcement of a court decision should not be understood as causing no discomfort to the debtor; on the contrary, a debtor should comprehend that a court decision had to be enforced, even if the debtor was not able to enforce it immediately. The debtor had to demonstrate respect towards the winning party and towards the court that had dispensed justice and had to make a reasonable effort to enforce the court decision in question as soon as possible, rather than doing everything possible to delay the enforcement of the court decision. Accordingly, if the applicant’s request were to be granted and the payment of the awarded litigation costs deferred, or if it were to be ordered that those costs be paid in instalments, that would disproportionately breach the interests of the defendant, in whose favour the court decision had been delivered. 44 .     Other court proceedings, wherein in July 2018 the applicant had sued the Trakai municipality for non-pecuniary damage in the sum of EUR   5,000, on account of the municipality’s decision not to start disciplinary proceedings against the head of the department where the applicant had worked, in January 2019 the applicant asked for State-guaranteed legal aid, and same month was granted the assistance of an advocate in proceedings that took place before first-instance and appellate courts, given that the applicant’s income for the period of 1   January 2018 to 31   December 2018 had been below the required threshold. The municipality was represented by A.P., the advocate. On 15   February 2019 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. By a final ruling of 11   November 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It also awarded the Trakai municipality’s legal costs, representation by advocate A.P., to be paid by the applicant, in the sum of EUR   150, instead of EUR   423, claimed by the municipality. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the case had not been complex and also referred to its previous decision regarding such costs (see paragraph 16 above). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Legislation 45 .     The Law on Administrative Proceedings ( Administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymas ) at the time material to the case read: Article 40. Reimbursement of the expenses incurred by parties “1. The party to the proceedings in whose favour a decision has been adopted shall be entitled to recover costs from the other party. ... 5. The party in whose favour a decision has been adopted shall be entitled to claim the reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of assistance rendered by an advocate or trainee advocate. ... The question of the reimbursement of [legal] representation expenses shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure and other legal acts. ...” Article 47. Representation in court “1. Parties to the proceedings shall defend their interests in court [either] themselves or through their representatives. The participation of the party in the proceedings shall not deprive it of the right to be represented in the case. ...” 46 .     The Code of Civil Procedure, as worded at the relevant time, read: Article 98. Reimbursement of the expenses incurred in respect of assistance rendered by an advocate or trainee advocate “1. The party in whose favour the decision has been adopted shall be reimbursed [at the order of] the court by the other party for the fees [paid to] the advocate or trainee advocate who participated in the hearing of the case, as well as for help afforded in respect of the preparation of the court documents and for consultation... 2. Expenses incurred in connection with assistance [provided by] an advocate or trainee advocate – taking into consideration the complexity of the specific case and the expenditure of labour and time on the part of the advocate or trainee advocate – shall be awarded in an amount no greater than that established in the recommendations regarding payment amounts approved by the Minister of Justice and the Chairman of the Council of the Lithuanian Bar Association. 3. The provisions of this article shall be applicable when awarding expenses incurred in respect of assistance provided by the advocate or trainee advocate who represented the party in the first instance, appellate or cassation court.” 47 .     The Recommendations on the Maximum Amounts of an Advocate’s or Trainee Advocate’s Fees that Can be Recovered in Civil Proceedings (hereinafter “the Recommendations”), approved by the Minister of Justice on 19   March 2015, Order no.   1R-77, provide: “... 2. When determining the amount of the fee for legal services rendered, the court shall take into account the following criteria: 2.1. the complexity of the case; 2.2. the complexity of legal services [and] the need for specialist knowledge; 2.3. previous participation in that case; ... 2.5. the amount [of money concerned by] the dispute; 2.6. the permanence and nature of the legal services rendered; 2.7. the novelty of the legal issues being addressed; 2.8. the conduct of the parties during the proceedings; 2.9. advocate working time costs; 2.10. other relevant circumstances. ... 7. The recommended maximum fees for legal services rendered by an advocate in civil cases are calculated by applying default coefficients, which are based on the average gross monthly earnings over the whole Lithuanian economy in the previous quarter ..., as published by the Department of Statistics of Lithuania. 8. The recommended maximum fees for the legal services rendered by an advocate are as follows: 8.2. for a claim, counterclaim, defence or reply to a counterclaim – 2.5; 8.3. for reply to a claim, ... – 1.5; ... 8.9. for an appeal – 2.5; 8.10. for an appeal, if the lawyer was present at the relevant proceedings at first instance – 1.7; 8.11. for a response to an appeal – 1.3; 8.12. for a cassation appeal – 3; 8.13. for an appeal on points of law, if the lawyer was present at the first-instance or appellate proceedings – 2.2; 8.14. for a response to an appeal on points of law – 1.7; ...” 48 .     The Law on the Civil Service ( Valstybės tarnybos įstatymas ) at the material time read: Article 43. Other Guarantees “1. A career civil servant whose post is annulled shall be appointed to another career civil service post of the same level and category – or, if there is no such post and the civil servant gives his consent, to a post in a lower category. If a career civil servant is not appointed to another post before his position is cancelled, he shall be dismissed from office ...” DOMESTIC court practice 49 .     In a ruling of 25   September 2008 in case no.   AS 143 -375/2008 – which concerned the award of litigation costs (namely, advocate’s fees) in favour of the Study Quality Evaluation Centre ( Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras ), a budgetary institution established by the Ministry of Education, against a private individual – the enlarged chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the right to a judicial remedy ( teisė į teisminę gynybą ) was a fundamental right, granted not only under domestic law (Article   30 §   1 of the Constitution, Article   4 §   1 of the Law on Courts, and Article 5 § 1 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings), but also by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. It added that the Con