CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2023

.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 } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54171/21 Stanislava GIRDAUSKIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 27 October 2021 communicated on 6 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the reimbursement of legal expenses in civil proceedings. The applicant lives in a residential building. In March 2019 the board of the residents’ association drew up a list of premises that were used by all residents, which list included all the hallways in the building. In April 2019 the general assembly of the residents’ association approved that list. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the residents’ association and the members of its board. She submitted that the hallway of the fourth floor was the joint property of the residents of that floor, including herself; therefore, its inclusion in the list of premises used by all residents had interfered with her property rights. She asked the courts to: (1)   annul the relevant part of the April 2019 decision of the general assembly; and (2)   annul the relevant part of the list drawn up by the board in March 2019. By a final decision, the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It annulled the relevant part of the April 2019 decision, finding that the inclusion of the premises owned by the applicant in the list of premises used by all residents had not complied with the law. However, it dismissed the part of the claim concerning the list drawn up by the board of the residents’ association, finding that that list had not had any legal effect. The Supreme Court further held that, since only one of the applicant’s two requests had been granted, she was entitled to the reimbursement of 50% of her legal expenses, and that she had to reimburse the defendants and the third parties 50% of their legal expenses. As a result, the applicant was reimbursed 950   euros (EUR), out of the EUR 1,900 which she had paid to her lawyer, and she had to pay a total of EUR   2,806 to the defendants and the third parties. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, despite the fact that the Supreme Court granted her main request and quashed the impugned decision, she had to pay more to the losing side than she was reimbursed by them. She submits that the Supreme Court did not find that she had abused her procedural rights or that her conduct had been otherwise inappropriate. She also complains under Article   13 of the Convention that she did not have any possibility to appeal against the decision regarding the reimbursement of legal expenses, since that question was decided by the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision regarding the reimbursement of legal expenses in the present case amount to a restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis , Černius and Rinkevičius v. Lithuania , nos. 73579/17 and 14620/18, § 68, 18   February 2020, and Dragan Kovačević v. Croatia , no.   49281/15, § 70, 12   May 2022)?   2.     Without prejudice to the answer to the previous question and assuming that there has been a restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court, did that restriction pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, § 78, 5 April 2018, and the cases cited therein)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to an effective domestic remedy, guaranteed under Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of her complaint concerning the reimbursement of legal expenses?