CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3400F3BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF741ECC3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     438   19.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KREUZ v. POLAND     In a judgment (available only in English) today notified in writing in the case Kreuz v. Poland (application number 28249/95), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for any non-pecuniary damage and PLN 12,422 less 976.55 Euro for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by Henryk Kreuz, who was born in 1955 and has dual Polish and Austrian nationality.   He lives in Austria.   On 9 May 1994 the applicant sued the Płock Municipality in the Płock Regional Court, seeking damages for the defendant’s failure to issue an administrative decision (planning permission to build a car-wash).   He claimed that the delay had cost him money and his potential business partners.   Under Polish law a party to civil proceedings must pay court fees for lodging a claim with a civil court and, as the case proceeds, for lodging any appeal – the initial fee usually amounting to 6 - 8% of the value of the claim in question.   Public authorities, however, are exempt.   Mr Kreuz applied for an exemption from paying court fees, submitting that he was unemployed and that he had put all his savings into the preparation of his investment in Poland, but his applications were refused, although the amount due was reduced.   Ultimately he was required to pay court fees of 100,000,000 (old) Polish zlotys, an amount equal to the average annual net salary in Poland at the time. As he failed to pay the fees due, Płock Regional Court discontinued the proceedings.       2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 May 1995. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 26 October 1999 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (by seventeen votes to seven).   It referred the case to the Court on 30 October 1999. A public hearing took place on 10 October 2000.         Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), President , Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges   and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1, that his right of access to a court was violated, as the level of the court fees he was required to pay forced him to drop his claim.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 The Court held that the requirement to pay fees to civil courts in connection with claims they were asked to determine could not be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to a court that was incompatible per se with Article 6 § 1. The Court underlined that neither an unqualified right to obtain free legal aid from the State in a civil dispute nor a right to free proceedings in civil matters could be inferred from that provision. It further reiterated, however, that the amount of the fees assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of a given case, including the applicant’s ability to pay them and the phase of the proceedings at which that restriction had been imposed, were important factors in determining whether a person’s right of access to a court had been breached. In this respect the Court noted that, even though the sum ultimately required was substantially reduced in comparison with that previously imposed, it was nevertheless equal to the average annual salary in Poland at that time, which, if seen from the perspective of the ordinary litigant, was undoubtedly substantial.   In addition, the findings which the relevant courts made in respect of the applicant’s financial situation appeared to have been based on his hypothetical earning capacity rather than on the facts he supplied. The judicial authorities also refused to accept the applicant’s argument that he was unable to pay the court fees, without obtaining or considering any evidence contradicting the facts he stated in his declaration of means, and the courts made certain assumptions as to the applicant’s financial standing that were not fully supported by the material before them. The Court further observed that, under Polish law, an exemption from payment of court fees could at any time be revoked by the courts if the basis for the exemption had ceased to exist. Allowing the applicant to proceed with his claim at the initial phase of the proceedings would not therefore have prevented the Polish courts from collecting court fees if, at a later stage, his financial situation had improved.   The Court considered that the judicial authorities had failed to secure a proper balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the State in collecting court fees for dealing with claims and, on the other hand, the interest of the applicant in vindicating his claim through the courts. The fee required from the applicant for proceeding with his action was excessive and resulted in his desisting from his claim and not being heard by a court, which, in the Court’s opinion, impaired the very essence of his right of access to a court. The Court therefore found that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.