CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2018

.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 18 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17082/13 Maria-Laura BRĂDĂȚAN against Romania lodged on 28 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s action for the suspension of the enforcement proceedings instituted against her. On 6 September 2012 the Bucharest District Court dismissed her action as inadmissible because she had not paid the required deposit. The applicant’s request for judicial aid (by which she had sought to be fully exempted from paying the deposit) had been dismissed on 3   September 2012 as inadmissible on the grounds that the type of exemption sought by the applicant was not provided for by law. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of access to a tribunal owing to her failure to deposit the requested amount for the suspension of the enforcement proceedings. She claims that the amount she had to pay, RON 31,223 (approximately 7,260 euros), was excessive compared to her family’s monthly income of RON   200 (approximately 46 euros). QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Iosif and others v.   Romania , no.   10443/03, 20 December 2007)?