CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Lawyer Partners, a.s., v. Slovakia - 54252/07 Judgment 16.6.2009 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal of courts to process applicant company’s civil actions submitted electronically: violation   Facts : In 2005 the applicant, a private limited company, wished to lodge over 70,000 civil actions requesting the payment of debts. Given the number of persons concerned, it generated the actions by means of computer software and recorded them on a DVD, which it then sent to the competent district courts along with an explanatory letter. However, the courts refused to register the actions on the grounds that they lacked the equipment necessary to receive and process submissions made and signed electronically. The applicant company then lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court against each of the refusals, relying on its right of access to court. Its complaints were rejected as having been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit. Even though the time-limit had been respected in relation to the individual complaints, the Constitutional Court considered that the relevant period had started to run from the date the applicant company first became aware of the courts’ inability to register submissions in electronic form. Law : The applicant company had lodged or intended to lodge a large number of civil actions, concerning tens of thousands of persons. If printed, those actions and their supporting documents would have filled over 40 million pages. In such circumstances, its choice as to the means of filing the actions could not be considered an abuse of process or otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, since 2002 the domestic law had provided for the electronic filing of court actions and the applicant company could not be criticised for having availed itself of this possibility. The courts’ refusal to register its actions had imposed a disproportionate limitation on its right to present its cases in an effective manner. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes