CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15476/24 John k/a Ganni ATTARD against Malta lodged on 31 May 2024 communicated on 4 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil appeal proceedings lodged by the applicant which were declared deserted on appeal for failure to pay the security for costs. In 2015 the applicant sued an officer of the Veterinary Regulations Department (‘VRD’) who he considered responsible for the culling of his 216 sheep (proceedings X). A first-instance court found against the applicant and ordered him to pay 54,463 euros (EUR) in costs (calculated based on the value of the applicants claim). The applicant appealed, and prior to the hearing of the appeal he was requested to pay EUR 48,499 in security for costs (based on the above-mentioned award of costs). In separate proceedings (proceedings Y), the applicant challenged the calculation of costs as not being according to law (namely in so far as it had been based on the amount stated in a prior request for a garnishee order which had been lifted – on the basis that the amount of the claim did not appear prima facie substantiated – as opposed to his undetermined claim in the proceedings). His challenge was rejected both at first instance and on appeal. In the continuation of the appeal in proceedings X, considering that he was unable to pay that amount, the applicant filed an application under Article   250 and 904 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (‘COCP’) for him to be admitted to the benefit of juratory caution (an exemption from paying the security for costs which can be given by the court subject to conditions). On 27 June 2022 the Court of Appeal rejected his request for failure to fulfil the requirements of Article 904 of the COCP, namely, to submit a sworn declaration and evidence as to his inability to pay and considering that the applicant did not have a probabilis causa litigandi with reference to a Constitutional Court judgment which had become res judicata . It further declared the appeal deserted, as per domestic law, for failure to pay the security for costs. In the meantime, on 26 April 2022 the applicant had instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the costs and security imposed on him were excessive, consequently he had been denied access to court under Article 6 of the Convention and suffered a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He reiterated that the calculated sum had not been in accordance with the law. By an appeal judgment of 24 February 2024, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment and refused to take cognisance of the case. It found that the costs had been properly calculated in accordance with the law, as already concluded in proceedings Y. Moreover, had the applicant been unable to pay the security he had had a remedy open to him (Article 904 of the COCP). However, despite being given several chances he had failed to submit any evidence and to take the oath necessary for the juratory caution. He thus had a means of obviating any violation of his right of access to court which he had failed to use. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied access to court due to the court fees imposed and the security which had to be paid prior to the appeal, both of which were excessive (as well as calculated improperly). Moreover, in assessing the possibility of exempting him from payment, the courts had incorrectly assessed his probabilis causa litigandi based on a judgment which was being challenged before this Court. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that because of the finding of the Court of Appeal, he nonetheless had to pay costs of proceedings which were never heard on the merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of excessive fees required to pursue proceedings (see, inter alia , Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, §   60, ECHR 2001-VI and Elcomp sp. z o.o. v. Poland , no. 37492/05, § 40, 19   April 2011)? Were the costs calculated in relation to the first-instance proceedings based on a percentage of the initial claims with no consideration of other circumstances excessive (see Iosif and Others v. Romania , no. 10443/03, §   59, 20 December 2007)? Does domestic law make provision for flexibility in the calculation of the court fees (including security for costs), and are such fees capped at a maximum amount (see Nalbant and Others v. Turkey , no.   59914/16, § 42, 3   May 2022)? In so far as it concerns the security for costs and the remedy under Article 904 of the COCP, the Government are requested to submit examples substantiating its effectiveness in practice.   2.     (a) Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that because of the finding by the Court of Appeal, he nonetheless had to pay costs of proceedings which were never heard? (b) If so, was there a breach of these provisions (see, mutatis mutandis , Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey , nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, §   136, 16   March 2021)? The applicant is requested to submit a copy of his applications before those courts, in so far as these have not been reproduced in their entirety in the relevant judgments.