CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3D24CB6C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 27 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2586/17 Andrzej PUCHALSKI against Poland lodged on 12 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Andrzej Puchalski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Giżycko. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant suffered a stroke and stopped working. He is now in receipt of a disability pension. At the material time his pension was of 1,835   Polish zlotys (PLN approximately 460 euros (EUR)) per month. 4.     The applicant sued his former employer for overdue salary and related payments, seeking PLN 135,000 (approximately EUR 34,000). 5.     The statutory 5% court’s fee for lodging such an action was calculated to amount PLN 6,726 (EUR 1,682). Given the applicant’s difficult financial situation and health problems, the domestic court waved 50% (PLN 3,363) of the court fee. 6.     On 30 April 2015 the Gdansk Regional Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, granting him PLN 250,571 (approximately EUR 63,000) from his former employer. 7.     On 29 September 2015, following the employer’s appeal, the Gdansk Court of Appeal altered the judgment, granting the applicant compensation of PLN 4,821 (approximately EUR 1,250). The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim (i.e. in respect of 98% of the amount sought). 8.     The applicant, intending to lodge a cassation appeal against that judgment, asked the appellate court to grant him the exemption from the cassation appeal’s fee. The applicant declared to be indigenous and furnished his financial records. 9.     On 29 March 2016 the Gdansk Court of Appeal granted the applicant a partial exemption, that is to say, 50% of the cassation appeal fee. The applicant was thus ordered to pay PLN 7,178 (approximately EUR 1,800). The court reasoned that although the applicant’s financial situation was difficult, he could have nevertheless set aside the money that he had earlier been awarded by the court. The court did not comment on the applicant’s lawyer’s submission that that money had never been paid to the applicant because of his former employer’s insolvency. 10.     No appeal lay against the above-mentioned decision. 11.     The applicant did not pay the fee. 12.     On 5 May 2016 the Gdansk Court of Appeal refuse to proceed with his cassation appeal for failure to pay the cassation appeal fee. 13.     On 20 May 2016 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He submitted, among many other arguments, that the he had never received the money which had been awarded to him by the appellate court because his former employer had been declared insolvent. 14.     On 31 May 2016 the Gdansk Court of Appeal called the applicant to pay PLN 14,356 (approximately EUR 3,600) as a fee for his interlocutory appeal. 15.     On 8 June 2016 the applicant asked to be exempted from that fee. 16.     On 28 June 2016 the Gdansk Court of Appeal dismissed this request without giving reasons. COMPLAINT 17.     The applicant complains, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, that due to a disproportionate amount of a court fee he had no access to the Supreme Court. He was thus deprived of an effective remedy, as a cassation appeal became practically unavailable for him. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Given the amount of court fees required from the applicant for lodging a cassation appeal, was his right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article   6   § 1, respected?