CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   471 16.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LAWYER PARTNERS, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Lawyer Partners, A.S. v. Slovakia (applications no. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08, 29557/08).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the refusal by the domestic courts to register actions submitted by the applicant company in electronic form.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company 10   000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 8   000   EUR for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Lawyer Partners, a.s., is a private limited company with its registered office in Bratislava. Between 2005 and 2006 the applicant company concluded contracts with Slovak Radio in which it acquired the right to recover unpaid broadcast receiver licences in 355   917   cases.   Lawyer Partners, a.s. was obliged to sue those persons who had refused to pay the debt which it had acquired the right to recover. It prepared individual actions with a request for payment orders to be issued against the debtors.   Thus in March and July 2006, the applicant company filed actions with several district courts. Given the number of individual proceedings ­ – more than 70   000 – the actions were generated by means of computer software and recorded on DVDs that were sent to the courts concerned, accompanied by an explanatory letter. The courts refused to register the actions, indicating that they lacked the equipment to receive and process submissions made and signed electronically.   The Constitutional Court rejected the complaints lodged by Lawyer Partners, a.s . in respect of the refusals – it alleged a violation of its right of access to a court – on account of the complaints having been lodged outside the statutory two month time limit.   The Ministry of Justice first stated in April 2006 that ordinary courts did not have the facilities to receive electronic submissions; following meetings with presidents of district and regional courts in November 2006 and February 2007 it concluded however that they were adequately equipped. Information about how to file submissions signed electronically was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice in October 2008.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The 15 applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights between 5   December 2007 and 10 June 2008. They were examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant company complained that its right of access to a court had been violated in that the domestic courts had refused to register its actions submitted in electronic form.   Decision of the Court   Although other means such as telegraph, fax, written or oral form had been provided in Slovakian law for filing submissions with courts, the only practical possibility for the applicant company to institute the 70   000 individual proceedings had been to submit the actions electronically. If printed, the documents recorded on the DVDs would have filled more than 40 million pages.   The Court recalled that, although the domestic courts had pleaded their lack of technical equipment to process the applicant company’s actions, the possibility of electronic filing had been incorporated in domestic law since 2002.   The Court thus found that the refusal to examine the applicant company’s submissions had imposed a disproportionate limitation on its right to present its cases to a court in an effective manner, in violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.