Communicated on 20 April 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 72453/12
Marian Edward WOŹNIAK and others
against Poland
lodged on 2 November 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are farmers who owned shares in the Kompania Piwowarska SA, a joint-stock company. They received their shares in 1998, free of cost, upon a contract with the Ministry of the State Treasury. It appears that in 1999 three applicants and Mr S.K. and Ms M.S. sold their shares. In 2005 the sale contract had been considered null and void as the applicants had been deceived by another company (the owners of that company had been convicted for having deceived a group of farmers into selling their shares).
On 23 December 1999 the three applicants and two other claimants (Mr S.K. and Ms M.S.) brought with the Poznań District Court a claim for payment against the Kompania Piwowarska SA and SAB Miller Poland (a company which had afterwards bought their shares). They set the value of the claim for 23,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The court fees due from such claim amounted to PLN 1,148 (approx. 250 euros (EUR)). Each claimant paid the court fee.
The defendants applied to reassess the value of the claim. On 15 September 2010 the court assessed the value of the claim for PLN 762,000 and, accordingly, set the amount of court fees as PLN 38,000 (EUR 8,500). At the same time the court considered that the Poznań Regional Court would be competent to deal with the case.
On 19 October 2010 the Poznań Regional Court requested from each of the applicants PLN 37,000 for court fees (the difference between the sum due and what had been already paid by them). They applied to be exempted from the court fees.
The first applicant submitted that the total income per year from his farm had been PLN 15,000 what had not been enough to cover for the costs of farming. In consequence he was heavily indebted. He had two dependants.
The second applicant assessed the income from his farm for PLN 23,000 per year. He described his costs of living and necessary expenses related to farming.
The third applicant also described her difficult financial situation in detail. The farm also generated more costs than income.
On 8 November 2010 the Poznań District Court dismissed the applicants’ requests to be exempted from the fees. The court considered their declaration of means as not trustworthy and not sufficiently justified by evidence.
The applicants lodged three appeals against the decision. They argued that as private persons they had not been obliged by law to submit evidence supporting their delectations of means. Moreover, it was open to the court to request the applications to supplement their declaration by relevant documents.
All appeals were dismissed on 20 December 2010 by the Poznań Court of Appeal.
Finally, the first applicant paid the required court fee of PLN 38,000 by taking a loan. The two other applicants and two other claimants Mr S.K. and Ms M.S. were allowed to participate in the proceedings.
On 12 April 2011 the Poznań Regional Court gave a judgment in which it dismissed the claim. The court also ordered each of the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings to the State Treasury in the amount of PLN 9,000 and reimburse the court fees due in the amount of 38,000 each (although one claimant, the first applicant, had paid the costs). Further, the applicants were ordered to reimburse the legal costs of the two defendants in the amount of PLN 7,000 each.
On 13 June 2011 the applicants lodged appeals against the judgment. They also applied to be exempted from the court fees in the appeal proceedings. Each of the applicants was again requested to pay PLN 38,000 for proceeding with their appeals.
On 15 July 2011 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the requests for exemption from the fees due for proceeding with their appeals. The court considered their declarations of means as not trustworthy in particular as they had concealed the fact of owning cars and farming machinery. The applicants appealed. The first applicant raised in his appeal an objection that he had actually declared the farming machinery in the motion prepared by his lawyer. The second applicant also submitted that it had not been necessary to indicate in his declaration the objects of low value, under PLN 10,000, and his car and tractor had been such. The applicants reiterated their arguments that they were poor farmers and had been often helped financially by their families and neighbours.
Their appeals were dismissed on 6 September 2011. The Court of Appeal considered that although the applicants had submitted evidence as to the income generated by their farms, the sums declared could not be considered as genuine since they had been lower than their expenses.
The appeals against the judgment of 12 April 2011 lodged by three applicants were rejected for failure to pay court fees on 15 November 2011.
The applicants wished to appeal against the latter decision. However, they were again requested to pay court fees from this appeal. On 30 December 2011 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed their requests for exemption from the court fees from the appeal. The appeals against the latter decisions regarding court fees were dismissed on 16 February 2012.
Given the final decision refusing them an exemption from the fees the applicants decided to pay the court fees in order to proceed with the appeal against the decision of 15 November 2011. They paid PLN 7,600 each in court fees.
On 9 May 2011 the Poznań Court of Appeal examined on the merits their appeal against the decision of 15 November 2011. It dismissed it considering that the court had correctly rejected their appeal against the judgment of 12 April 2011 on the ground of their failure to pay the court fees.
This decision is final as regards the three applicants. However, as regards the remaining two claimants (Mr S.K. and Ms M.S.) the court partially exempted them from the court fees due to appeal against the judgment of 12 April 2011. They paid the requested fee in the amount of about PLN 500 each. It appears that on 6 September 2012 the Poznań Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and remitted the case for reconsideration (sygn akt I ACa 578/12). The further course of the civil proceedings is unknown; however, the applicants are no longer party to those proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment of Mogielnicki v. Poland, no. 42689/09, §§ 20-27, 15 September 2015.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about not being exempted from the court fees in the civil proceedings. The court fees imposed on them for appealing against the judgment of 12 April 2011 had deprived them of their right of access to a court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Given the amount of court fees required from each of the three applicants to appeal against the first-instance judgment, was their right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article 6 § 1, respected?
2. The Government are requested to provide information as to the following course of the proceedings in respect of two other claimants Mr S.K. and Ms M.S.
Appendix
Marian Edward WOŹNIAK (born on 13/10/1953), lives in Ludwin; represented by Sławomir BARTNIK.
Jan CZYŻ (born on 07/07/1963), lives in Żółkiewka; represented by Sławomir BARTNIK.
Zofia WÓJCIAK (born on 21/04/1960), lives in Żółkiewka, represented by Sławomir BARTNIK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy