CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 novembre 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 November 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15359/14 Károly BÍRÓ against Hungary lodged on 12 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s action of 25 February 2011 in which he claimed that his previous employer, a local municipality, had dismissed him unlawfully. On 15 September 2011 the Pécs Labour Court found that the dismissal was unlawful and granted the applicant outstanding wages, compensation and costs. On appeal, on 12 January 2012 the Pécs High Court upheld in essence the decision while increasing the amount of compensation. However, in review proceedings, on 5 June 2013 (service: 9   September 2013) the Kúria reversed these decision and dismissed the action. In application of the relevant rules, it imposed the obligation on the applicant to pay 1,631,600 Hungarian forints (approximately 5,250 euros) in legal costs. The applicant complains under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article6 § 1 of the Convention that the imposition of a large amount of procedural costs – which in reverse situation would not have been payable by the respondent municipality – amounts to a discriminatory infringement of his right to access to a court. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the allegedly excessive court fees hamper the applicant’s right of access to a court protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Stankov v. Bulgaria , no. 68490/01, § 67, 12 July 2007)?