Communicated on 25 April 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 42307/09
Aldona FALKAUSKIENĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 14 July 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Aldona Falkauskienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Girkaliai (Klaipėda Region). She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Falkauskas, a lawyer practising in Joniškis.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1990 the authorities of the newly independent Lithuanian State decided to restructure the Lithuanian branch of the Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs of the USSR as the Lithuanian Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs. A special commission was tasked with liquidating the Soviet bank and taking over the funds of Lithuanian nationals which had been deposited in the Soviet bank.
In September 1991 the applicant received an inheritance of 15,814 US dollars (USD) from the USA. It was transferred to her account in the Lithuanian Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs. In February 1992 the applicant attempted to withdraw the entire amount from the bank but was informed by the bank’s management that it did not have sufficient funds to satisfy all requests for cash withdrawal and she could therefore only withdraw USD 2,000. The applicant withdrew that amount.
On 20 June 1995 the Convention entered into force in respect of Lithuania.
In June 1997 the Lithuanian Parliament enacted the Law governing the Restoration of Residents’ Savings, which set out the order of priority and conditions for refunding savings which had been deposited with the Lithuanian branch of the Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs of the USSR. In March 1999 that Law was amended, with the maximum refundable amount being set at 6,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 1,738 euros (EUR)).
In 2006 the applicant brought a civil claim against the State, requesting the return of the sum deposited, together with the interest payable since 1991 and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Her claim amounted to LTL 466,555.75 (EUR 135,124) in total.
The Vilnius Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay court fees. In accordance with Article 80 § 1 of the Code of Civil Proceedings at the material time, court fees for monetary claims exceeding LTL 300,000 amounted to LTL 7,000, plus 1% of that part of the respective claim in excess of LTL 300,000. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay LTL 8,665.56 (EUR 2,510).
The applicant asked the regional court to exempt her from the obligation to pay court fees due to her difficult financial situation: she claimed that she was retired, that her retirement pension was her only income, and that the court fees demanded exceeded her annual income. The court refused to examine her request on the grounds of failure to comply with the formal requirements.
The applicant was subsequently granted State-guaranteed legal aid, whereby 50% of her legal expenses were covered by the State. As a result, the Vilnius Regional Court reduced the court fees payable by the applicant by 50% and ordered her to pay LTL 4,332.78 (EUR 1,255). The applicant appealed against that decision, requesting complete exemption from court fees, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court, and the applicant subsequently paid the amount demanded.
On 11 February 2008 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for the return of the sum deposited, the interest accrued, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court found that at the time when the applicant received the sum in question, the Lithuanian Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs had not yet been established as an independent Lithuanian bank but was still a branch of the Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs of the USSR, meaning that the applicant’s funds had been deposited in the Soviet bank. The court also found that the Soviet bank had not transferred the funds deposited with it to any Lithuanian bank, and that negotiations were still ongoing between the Lithuanian and the Russian governments concerning the funds of private individuals which had been in the possession of Soviet banks. As a result, the Vilnius Regional Court concluded that the applicant’s funds had not been expropriated by the Lithuanian authorities and there were therefore no grounds for awarding her any compensation.
The applicant appealed against that judgment. According to Article 80 § 4 of the Code of Civil Proceedings, court fees for the submission of an appeal were calculated in the same way as those for the initial claim. She was therefore ordered to pay LTL 4,332.78 (EUR 1,255). The applicant requested that the court allow her to pay half the court fees after the examination of her appeal, and that request was granted. She paid LTL 2,166.28 (EUR 627).
On 7 November 2008 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s civil claim and upheld the judgment of the Vilnius Regional Court in its entirety. It then ordered the applicant to pay the remaining half of the court fees (LTL 2,166.28), which she duly did.
The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. She also asked the Supreme Court to exempt her from the obligation to pay court fees, or to defer the payment until after the examination of her appeal on points of law. The court granted the latter request and deferred the payment.
On 14 April 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the findings of the lower courts. As regards court fees, the court noted that the domestic law did not enable it to completely exempt the applicant from paying them, but due to her difficult financial situation the Supreme Court decided to reduce the amount demanded and ordered the applicant to pay LTL 100 (EUR 29). The applicant paid that amount.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was obliged to pay court fees which exceeded her annual income.
She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was unable to recover the full amount transferred to her bank account in September 1991.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the level of court fees that she was asked to pay (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 58‑67, ECHR 2001‑VI)?
2. Did the applicant’s inability to recover the full amount of money transferred to her bank account in September 1991 constitute a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy