Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31
June 2001
Kreuz v. Poland - 28249/95
Judgment 19.6.2001 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Requirement to pay court fees: violation
Facts: The applicant was refused final zoning approval for a car-wash. The Supreme Administrative Court quashed this decision, finding that the municipality had breached the rule of law, and remitted the case. The applicant sued the municipality for damages but the Regional Court rejected the claim on the ground that the zoning proceedings were still pending. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal and was ordered to pay court fees of PLZ 200,000,000. His request to be exempted, based on a declaration of means, was granted for the interlocutory proceedings. The Court of Appeal then quashed the Regional Court's decision rejecting the applicant's damages claim and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The Regional Court considered the applicant's request to be exempted from the court fees in respect of the damages claim. It considered that the appropriate fee (based on a percentage of the claim) was too high but ordered him to pay a reduced fee of PLZ 100,000,000. It took the view that when engaging in a business venture he should have foreseen the possibility of litigation. The applicant's appeal against this decision was rejected and, since he did not pay the court fees, his statement of claim was returned to him.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The Court has never ruled out the possibility that the interests of the proper administration of justice may justify imposing a financial restriction on access to a court. Furthermore, neither an unqualified right to obtain free legal aid from the State in civil matters nor a right to free proceedings in civil matters can be inferred from Article 6. Thus, the requirement to pay fees to civil courts in connection with claims they are asked to determine cannot be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to a court that is in itself incompatible with Article 6. As to whether the imposition of a fee in the present case was compatible with the right of access to court, although the fee was reduced, it was nevertheless equal to the average annual salary in Poland at that time and, from the perspective of the ordinary litigant, was undoubtedly substantial. When setting the fee, the courts relied to a considerable degree on the assumption that engaging in a business activity could in itself imply the necessity of litigation; they also assumed that the applicant lived on his savings and that the scale of his investments proved his ability to pay the court fee. However, these grounds are not persuasive. Firstly, the applicant's claim related only loosely, if at all, to a business activity as such, and secondly, the courts' findings with regard to the applicant’s financial situation appear to have been based on his hypothetical earning capacity rather than on the facts he had supplied. They thus refused to accept his argument that he was unable to pay the fees without obtaining or considering any evidence contradicting his declaration of means, and indeed made assumptions that were not fully supported by the material before them. They therefore failed to secure a proper balance between the interest of the State in collecting court fees and the interest of the applicant in vindicating his claim through the courts. The fee was excessive and resulted in the applicant desisting from his claim, thus impairing the very essence of his right of access to a court.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court did not consider that it had been shown that any pecuniary loss had been caused by the breach of the right of access to court. It awarded the applicant PLN 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy