CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 25 April 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 35868/10 Balo KERDIKOSHVILI against Georgia lodged on 3 June 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Balo Kerdikoshvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Gori. He is represented before the Court by Ms   N.   Katsitadze and Ms T. Abazadze, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 24 March 2007 the applicant purchased a large amount of alcohol with an intention to resell it. The Financial Police Department seized the cargo while it was being transported and transferred it for storage to a warehouse in Gori, pending the determination of the legality of the applicant’s purchase. The applicant appealed to the Gori District Court which declared the record of administrative offense issued by the Financial Police Department null and void and ordered the return of the applicant’s possessions. The judgment was upheld by the courts of appeal and cassation and became final on 10 September 2008. 4.     The applicant’s request to execute the judgment was refused by the Gori Tax Inspection on account of the alleged looting of the warehouse during the August 2008 armed conflict. Subsequent claims for damages were rejected on the ground that a separate criminal investigation was pending into the alleged looting. 5.     On 21 April 2009 the applicant filed a request with the Tbilisi City Court to order the Revenue Service of the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the Gori Tax Inspection to award compensation with respect to the pecuniary damages. He also asked to be released from payment of the court fee in light of the financial losses sustained due to the events in question and presented several documents in support of his claim. Alternatively, he argued for a reduction of the fee or a deferral of payment. The requests were rejected and the case was dealt with only after the payment of the court fee of 3,000 Georgian Laris (GEL – approximately 1,395 euros (EUR). 6.     Between 16 October 2009 and 28 February 2011 the civil proceedings were stayed on account of the pending criminal investigation into the alleged looting of the warehouse. 7.     On 8 July 2011 the Tbilisi City Court found against the applicant. The court stated that due to the August 2008 armed conflict, the respondent authorities were not at fault for the looting of the storage facility or the loss of the cargo and consequently, for the damage inflicted upon the applicant. 8.     The applicant lodged an appeal with the Tbilisi Court of Appeals together with a request to be released from payment of the court fee of GEL   5,000 (approximately EUR 2,325) due to his difficult financial situation. Documents adduced in support of his claim included proof of loans owed to different banks and private individuals. He also indicated that he was unemployed and was provided with a pro bono legal representation. Additionally, the applicant referred to his previous request filed as part of the first set of proceedings on 11 May 2009 and emphasized that his right of access to the court under the Convention was at stake. 9.     On 12 August 2011 the Tbilisi Court of Appeals rejected the applicant’s request to be exempted from payment of the court fee citing the absence of reliable evidence in support of his claim. The additional request to have the fee reduced and the required evidence indicated explicitly was rejected on 16 September 2011 without providing additional reasoning. On 4   October 2011 the Court of Appeals refused to examine the appeal on account of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fee. The appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected as unsubstantiated on 1 December 2011, without addressing the key arguments of the applicant. The judgment referred to the disposition principle under article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to state that it was the applicant’s responsibility to determine the specific evidence that could have served as grounds for the court to grant his motion. The applicant was served with the final judgment on 29   December 2011. B.     Relevant domestic law 10.     The relevant domestic law as regards the court fees has been described in the case of FC Mretebi v. Georgia (no. 38736/04, § 29, 31   July 2007). COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-exemption from the payment of high court fees violated his right of access to a court. In addition, he complains under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 about the inability to receive damages for the loss of his unlawfully seized goods.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1     In the light of the Court’s findings in the cases of FC   Mretebi v.   Georgia (no.   38736/04, §§   38 ‑ 50, 31 July 2007) and Kreuz v.   Poland (no.   28249/95, §§   52 ‑ 67, ECHR   2001 ‑ VI), has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? 2.     Assuming that the relevant domestic remedies have been exhausted for the purposes of the applicant’s complaint under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, have his property rights been breached within the meaning of this provision?