CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2006

.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. 85 April 2006 Stankiewicz v. Poland - 46917/99 Judgment 6.4.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Refusal to reimburse costs borne in respect of a public prosecutor’s unsuccessful civil-law claim in favour of a third party: violation   Facts : The applicants purchased a property from the State Treasury following a tender organised by a district office. In accordance with the Land Administration and Expropriation Act, the equivalent of the value of the property left by the applicants’ ancestors in the former eastern territories of Poland was counted towards the purchase price. The public prosecutor brought an action against the applicants on behalf of the State Treasury, claiming that they had acted to the detriment of the State Treasury by inflating the value of the property they had left behind. The prosecutor claimed a sum of about PLN   111,000 (almost EUR 31,000) as the State’s alleged loss. A regional court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim against the applicants and ordered the State Treasury to reimburse their litigation costs. The court relied on Articles 98 and 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the costs of litigation are to be borne by the unsuccessful party to the proceedings. A court of appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal as regards the purchase price for the property but overturned the regional court’s decision to award the applicants their costs. The appellate court considered that the situation of a prosecutor bringing a civil action in favour of a third party was particular. This singular character of the prosecutor’s role in a civil case was reflected in Article   106 of the Code of Civil Procedure under which such participation by the prosecutor did not entail for the other party a right to reimbursement of litigation costs. Moreover, as the district office had not joined the proceedings as a plaintiff all litigation costs had to be borne by the defendants. The costs totalled almost PLN 24,000 (approximately EUR 6,600). Law : The Court noted that under Article   98 of the Code of Civil Procedure the party losing a civil case was normally obliged to reimburse the litigation costs to the successful party. Under Article   106 of the Code that principle was not applicable when a public prosecutor participated in civil proceedings in his or her capacity of guardian of legal order. The Supreme Court’s case-law enabled the courts to apply the Code of Civil Procedure in such a manner as to mitigate the privileged position of the prosecuting authorities in respect of the litigation costs, thus better taking into account the particularities of each individual case and the legitimate interests of an individual. The appellate court had nonetheless overturned the decision in respect of costs simply because the opponents in the case had been the prosecuting authorities, and despite the fact that the lower courts had found against the prosecutor concerning the merits of the case. The Court noted moreover that from the outset the prosecuting authorities enjoyed a privileged position with respect to the costs of civil proceedings and had in any event at their disposal legal expertise and ample financial means exceeding those available to any individual. While such a privilege might be justified for the protection of the legal order, it should not be applied so as to put a party to civil proceedings to undue disadvantage vis-à-vis the prosecuting authorities. Having noted the complexity of the case and the substantial amount of money involved, the Court found that the applicants’ decision to have professional legal representation could not be said to have been unwarranted. Neither had the Government shown that that the legal fees incurred in the case   had been inconsistent with   those practised at the time in cases of a similar character.   In those circumstances, the costs of professional legal assistance in the civil case had not been incurred recklessly or without good justification. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicant some EUR 12,800 (around PLN 50,000) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses.   © 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