CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2021

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 31 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56080/19 2001 SH.P.K. against Albania lodged on 18 October 2019 communicated on 10 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE It would appear that in 2007 the applicant company was granted a mining license. In the meantime, a third party started exploiting the area in respect of which the mining license had been granted. Consequently, the applicant company lodged an action for damages against the third party. Following an expert’s report, the amount of damages was assessed to be 169,895,010 Albanian leks. On 16 May 2013 the Tirana District Court refused to proceed with the examination of the action for damages owing to the applicant company’s failure to pay the court fees amounting to one per cent of the total amount of assessed damages. The court had previously dismissed a request for exemption from the payment of court fees because of the applicant company’s financial difficulties. The court decided to return the action for damages to the applicant company, in accordance with Article   154/a of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 20 November 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. On 25 November 2013 the applicant company lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court before which it is still pending. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an alleged breach of its right of access to court and of the “reasonable time” requirement as regards the length of the civil proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards its complaints under the Convention (see Questions nos. 2 and 3 below), has the applicant company complied with the   six-month   time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant company’s right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI)? In particular: (a)     Was the domestic legal framework concerning the calculation and payment of court fees clear, precise and foreseeable? (b)     Did the statutory requirement to pay court fees restrict the applicant company’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If so, were those restrictions of access to court justified and proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued? (c)     Was the domestic court’s decision dismissing the applicant company’s request for exemption from court fees adequately reasoned?   3.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Luli and Others v. Albania , nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, §   87, 1   April   2014)?   4.     Has there been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention taken together with the complaint under Article 6 § 1 about an alleged breach of the applicant company’s right of access to court?