FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 60606/11 R.A . against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

Ineta Ziemele , President, Päivi Hirvelä , George Nicolaou , Nona Tsotsoria , Paul Mahoney , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Faris Vehabović , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2011 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms R. A., is a Polish national, who was born in 1973. T he President granted the applicant ’ s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). She is represented before the Court by Ms M. Gąsiorowska , a lawyer practising in Warszawa .

The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Civil proceedings

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3 . In July 2010 the applicant filed with the Warszawa- Praga Regional Court a claim for the protection of her personal rights against the company S. which publish es the newspaper “ Nasz Dziennik ”, its editor-in-chief E.S. and journalist M.S. She referred to an article published in this newspaper in January 2008 which, in the applicant ’ s submission, had breached her rights protected by Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code. She sought compensation in the amount of 60,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by disclosing information about her private life accompanied by denigrating and untrue statements and views about the applicant published in the newspaper in an article written by M.S. She further requested that all three defendants publish apologies, on the newspaper ’ s website for seven con secutive days and in a Sunday edition of a countrywide daily newspaper Gazeta wyborcza , for damage caused by describing her in a mendacious and wrongful manner ( w sposób nieprawdziwy i krzywdzący ).

4 . By a decision of 22 July 2010 the court ordered the applicant to provide the court with the private addresses ( miejsce zamieszkania ) of E.S. and M.S. within seven days, referring to Article 126 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5 . In her pleadings of 4 August 2010 the applicant submitted that it was impossible for her to establish the defendants ’ private addresses and even less so within seven days. It was true that it was possible for her to ask the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the addresses of private persons, but such a request had to be accompanied by the statistical number s (PESEL) of the persons concerned. The applicant did not know these numbers and had no way of obtaining them . She argued that in her statement of claim ( pozew ) she had provided the court with the newspaper ’ s publisher ’ s official address which should be sufficient for effective service of the court correspondence both on the journalist and the editor-in-chief working there. She submitted that in the circumstances of the case the requirement to give the defendants ’ private addresses am ounted to an undue restriction of her right of access to court.

6 . On 27 September 2010 the applicant requested the court to lift the order of 22 July 2010, referring to the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Nowiński v. Poland (no. 25924/06 , 20 October 2009). She submitted that the domestic court ’ s approach was unduly formalistic as no proper regard had been had to the practicalities of the situation , in particular to the difficulties in establishing the defendants ’ private addresses. She argued that it was in fact possible to ensure effective service of the court correspondence on the editor and journalist at the newspaper ’ s official address.

7 . By a decision of 29 September 2010 the court, referring to Article 130 of the Code of C ivil Procedure, returned the statement of claim to the applicant ( zwrot pozwu ) in so far as it concerned the editor-in-chief and the journalist . The court referred to the applicant ’ s failure to give their private addresses and refused to entertain her claim. The court referred to the Supreme Court ’ s decision given in 1989 to the effect that in the protection of personal rights cases in the context of press publications the requirements of Article 126 of the Code of Civil P rocedure w ere to be understood as imposing on plaintiffs an obligation to submit private addresse s of journalists to the court in the statement of claim (II CZ 167/89). Article 135 of the CCP providing for service of court pleadings at the employer ’ s address ( doręczenie zastępcze ) could not be applied.

8 . The applicant appealed. She reiterated that she had indicated the publisher ’ s address in her statement of claim and that both the editor and journalist could easily be contacted at that address and the court correspondence served on them. Hence, it was possible for the court to establish an effective channel of communication with the two defendants and to ensure effective protection of their rights without the need for their private addresses being indicated to the court.

9 . By a decision of 10 May 201 1 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. It was of the view that the contested decision was lawful given that Article 126 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure required that the private address ( miejsce zamieszkania ) of a defendant who was a natural person was indicated in the statement of claim and in the pleadings. The court observed that the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Nowiński v. Poland was irrelevant to the circumstances of the present case . The Court had found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of a situation where the court obliged the plaintiff who did not have a permanent private address to give such an address for the purposes of judicial proceedings . The present case was different in that it concerned private addresses of defendants who had permanent addresses.

2. The applicant ’ s subsequent efforts to establish E.S. ’ s and M.S. ’ s private addresses

10 . On 28 September 2010 the applicant requested the newspaper ’ s publisher, S. company , to provide her with E.S. ’ s and M.S. ’ s private addresses, referring to the civil claim lodged with the Warszawa ‑ Praga Regional Court. There was no reply to this letter.

11 . On 19 October 2010 the applicant submitted a request to the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection ( Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osobowych ) to oblige the publisher to provide her with the addresses concerned. She argued that the courts in the Warsaw region had developed an unduly restrictive practice requiring plaintiffs to give the personal addresses of defendants in all cases and had regard neither to practical difficulties in establishing these addresses, nor to the fact that in many cases, like in her case, it was in fact possible to proceed with the case as other addresses of the defendants, such as their employer ’ s permanent addresses, were available . Establishing effective communication between the court and the plaintiff was therefore feasible.

12 . On 24 March 2011 the Inspector allowed her request.

13 . The S. company appealed, submitting that the addresses were not necessary for the purposes relied on by the applicant. The applicant could find the necessary data in the press titl es register run by the Warszawa ‑ Praga Regional Court. The publisher was further of the view that disclosure of the personal addresses of the journalist and the editor without their consent would have amounted to a breach of the legislation on the protection of personal data.

14 . Following the publisher ’ s appeal, on 27 May 2011 the Inspector re ‑ examined the case and upheld the contested decision. He noted that the lack of consent on the part of persons whose personal data were to be disclosed was not a single or decisive factor determining the lawfulness of such a disclosure. Personal data could be disclosed also when it was necessary for the protection of legally protected interests of third parties. In the present case the personal addresses of the journalists were necessary for the applicant to pursue her civil case against them. Hence, the publisher, in its capacity of administrator of its employees ’ personal data, was obliged to disclose them.

15 . On 20 February 2012 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the appeal brought to it by the publishing company , essentially reiterating the reasoning of the administrative authority.

16 . On 10 April 2012 the publisher ’ s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court against that judgment . It was argued , inter alia , that there was no legitimate aim that would justify the disclosure of the journalist ’ s and editor ’ s addresses to the applicant , regard being had to the fact that the Warszawa ‑ Praga Regional Court had already returned the applicant ’ s statement of claim (see paragraph 7 above) . In the absence of any pending case between the applicant on the one hand and E.S. (who had in the meantime married and her new name was E. N. – K.) and M.C. on the other, the disclosure would not serve any practical purpose.

17 . On 5 December 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the publisher ’ s appeal. It shared the reasoning and conclusions reached by the administrative authority and by the first-instance court.

3. The civil case against the newspaper ’ s publisher

18. On 25 July 2012 the Warszawa- Praga Regional Court allowed the applicant ’ s claim in so far as it was directed against the publisher company. It ordered it to publish apologies in their newspaper, for seven consecutive days, for having breached her personal rights by disclosing and publishing details of her personal life and describing them in a mendacious and wrongful manner ( w sposób nieprawdziwy i krzywdzacy ). It further ordered that the article should be removed from the newspaper ’ s website within 14 days from the judgment becoming final. The applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of PLN 30,000.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 25 of the Civil Code of 23 April 1964 provides:

“The personal address of a natural person shall be the town where that person resides with the intention of remaining permanently.”

19 . Article 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies the information that pleadings in civil cases should contain. Paragraph 2 provides , in particular, that the first pleading submitted to a court in a case directed against a natural person should indicate the parties ’ personal address es .

COMPLAINT

20. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a breach of her right of access to a court for the determination of her civil rights.

THE LAW

21. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a breach of her right of access to a court for the determination of her civil rights. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

22. The Government were of the view that the applicant had failed to exhaust an effective and available domestic remedy, i.e. the constitutional complaint. They submit ted that the criteria set out by the Court in the case of Szott-Medyńska v. Poland ( dec. ) , no. 47414/99 , 9 October 2003 as to situations where this complaint should be resorted to by applicants before lodging their application s with the Court were not met. The applicant should have challenged the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedur e which had served as a legal basis for the court ’ s order to return her statement of claim within three months of that order becoming final. She had failed to do so.

23 . The applicant disagreed. She submitted that the violation of Article 6 in her case had originated in the judicial interpretation of the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the particular circumstances of the case, not in the provisions as such. Hence, the constitutional complaint was not a relevant remedy to which she should be obliged to have had recourse prior to bringing her case before the Court.

24. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government ’ s objection based on the applicant ’ s failure to exhaust domestic remedies because this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

25. The Court h as on many occasions emph asise d the importance of the right of access to a court , having regard to the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland , judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24). A restrictive interpretation of that right would not be consonant with the object and purpose of this provision (see De Cubber v. Belgium , judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, § 30).

26. However, the right of access to a court secured by Article 6 § 1 is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. In laying down such regulation, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, but the final decision as to observance of the Convention ’ s requirements rests with the Court. Limitations on the right to a court are compatible with Article 6 only if they do not restrict or reduce the access left to the litigant in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Moreover, such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see , among many other authorities, Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom , 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; ZwiÄ…zek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland , no. 42049/98, § 29, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; Szwagrun-Baurycza v. Poland , no. 41187/02, § 49, 24 October 2006; Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, § 54, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI; Zapadka v. Poland , no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009 ).

27. It is not the Court ’ s task to take the place of the domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. The Court ’ s role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Edif icaciones March Gallego S.A. v. Spain , 19 February 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). This applies in particular to the interpretation by courts of rules of a procedural nature (see, among other authorities, BÄ›lÄ›s and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 47273/99, §§ 51, 60, ECHR 2002-IX, and Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain , 28 October 1998, § 43, Reports 1998 ‑ VIII).

28. In the present case, the applicant brought a civil case for the protection of her personal rights in respect of allegations made in an article published by the newspaper owned by the defendant company. The case was brought against the company publishing the newspaper, its editor ‑ in ‑ chief and the author of the impugned article. The court ordered the applicant to provide it with the private addresses of the editor and journalist. The applicant, in her subsequent pleadings, referred to the practical difficulties in obtaining these addresses and submitted that it was impossible to establish them (see paragraphs 5-6) above. The court referred to the Supreme Court ’ s decision given in 1989 to the effect that in the protection of personal rights cases in the context of press publications Article 126 of the Code of Civil procedure was to be understood as imposing an obligation to submit private addresse s of journalists to the court in the statement of claim (see paragraph 7 above). Ultimately, the applicant ’ s claim, in so far as it was directed against the journalist and editor was returned and this part of the case was not examined by the courts.

29. The Court notes that the applicant expressly acknowledged that in the Polish law there was a remedy that enabled every interested person to obtain a registered address of any person living in Poland. The Court notes that everyone who has demonstrated one ’ s legal interest (for instance by providing a copy of a court order to communicate the address of the respondent) may request the Minister of Interior to communicate to her or him the registered address of a specific person. This remedy is the usual way used by plaintiffs in Poland to comply with the requirement to communicate the addr ess of a respondent to a court.

The applicant submitted in this respect that sometimes people did not have their real abode under the registered address. However, she failed to provide any plausible explanation as to why in the present case she failed to have recourse to the above mentioned legal avenue. It has to be noted in this context that under the Polish law the fact that the court returned her statement of claim did not prevent her from lodging a fresh statement of claim after obtaining the address of the respondent journalist from the Minister of Interior or after obtaining it in another way.

30. The Court does not rule out that the requirement to provide the court with a defendant ’ s private address might in certain circumstances be difficult to comply with for the claimant and therefore amount to an obstacle in bringing a civil claim before the courts. However, it observes that in the present case the applicant ’ s claim was subsequently examined on its merits in so far as it was directed against the publisher. Not only did the court order the defendant to publish the apologies in the newspaper concerned for a period of seven consecutive days , as required by the applicant in her statement of claim, but the applicant also obtained pecuniary compensation in the amount of PLN 30,000 for the breach of her personal rights. The court expressly acknowledged that the impugned article written by M.S. was mendacious and unlawful, as the applicant had requested (see paragraph 3 above). A relevant statement emphasising the wrongful character of the statements contained in the article was to be put in the apologies referred to above.

31. No arguments have been submitted to the Court to show that the applicant could have obtain ed anything more had the case been conducted also agains t the editor and the journalist, or how their participation in the proceedings could have affected the outcome of the proceedings.

32. In these circumstances, the Court cannot accept that the very essence of the applicant ’ s right of access to a court in respect of her claim for the protection of her personal rights was impaired in a way that can be said to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.

33. It follows that th e application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President