Communicated on 9 December 2020 Published on 11 Janu ary 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 4624/20 AudronÄ— FILIMANAVIÄŒIENÄ– against Lithuania lodged on 10 January 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was dismissed from the Ministry of Transport and Communications on the pretext that her post had been made redundant. She challenged her dismissal before the courts of civil jurisdiction, which ultimately quashed the decision to dismiss the applicant as based on fictitious reorganisation of the posts and thus ungrounded. She was awarded compensation for unpaid salary, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and certain part of the legal costs she had incurred, the decision on the merits of her dismissal having been taken by the Supreme Court on 2 January 2020.

Within the framework of that litigation the applicant also asked to be awarded the remaining part of legal costs – about 3,500 euros, which by contract she had owned to her lawyer. However, on 18 June 2019 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to accept her request, and by a final ruling of 11 July 2019 the Supreme Court did not accept her appeal on points of law for examination.

Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about fairness of court proceedings and lack of access to court. She states that due to technical reasons – failure on the part of the court to properly notify her and her lawyer about the forthcoming court hearing – she had been unable to provide that court with the documents proving that she had paid the remaining sum she owed her lawyer for legal services. The applicant further complains that the courts refused to examine her complaint that she had not been properly informed about forthcoming court hearing, and thus her request for the compensation of remaining legal costs had been rejected.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to access to court and right to a fair hearing, as provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the domestic courts:

( i ) refused to examine the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the claim to compensate the remaining part of the legal costs incurred by her during civil court proceedings contesting her dismissal (see Askon AD v. Bulgaria , no. 9970/05, §§ 25 and 26, 16 October 2012, and the case-law cited therein), and

( ii) did not compensate the applicant ’ s remaining part of the legal costs incurred in connection with that litigation (see Černius and Rinkevičius v. Lithuania , nos. 73579/17 and 14620/18, § § 65-74, 18 February 2020)?