Communicated on 6 October 2020 Published on 26 October 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 18487/17 Zofia SMOLORZ against Poland lodged on 27 February 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Zofia Smolorz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Lędziny . She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Chmielewski , a lawyer practising in Katowice.

The circumstances of the case

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

3 . The applicant was a defendant in civil proceedings for payment for work that the applicant had been commissioned to do . In particular, a development company hired the applicant to remove a large number of trees from a construction site and to take specific measures of compensatory mitigation of the environmental damage. As a result of the applicant ’ s alleged non-compliance with the contract, the developer had to pay the local authorities approximately EUR 10,000. The development company in question sued the applicant, seeking payment of damages which comprised the refund of the fee paid to the local authorities (EUR 10,000), as well as punitive damages for the breach of contract ( kara umowna ) in the amount of EUR 43,000. The applicant lost the civil case and was ordered to pay the plaintiff approximately 50,000 euros (EUR) of damages.

4 . In the last phase of the proceedings, the applicant asked for exemption from court fee for lodging a cassation appeal in so far as that fee was to exceed 500 Polish zlotys (PLN, approx. EUR 125).

5 . On 19 May 2016 the Gdań sk Court of Appeal refused the applicant ’ s request and issued an unreasoned decision.

6 . No appeal lay against the above-mentioned decision.

7 . The applicant did not pay the fee.

8 . On 29 August 2016 the Gda ń sk Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal against th e judgment delivered by the Gdań sk Court of Appeal on 26 January 2016, for failure to pay the cassation appeal fee (I Aca 684/15).

9 . The applicant did not lodge an interlocutory appeal against that decision pursuant to Article 394 (1) § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

COMPLAINT

10 . The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that requiring her to bear a disproportionately high fee for a cassation appeal, effectively deprived her of access to the Supreme Court.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Given the amount of court fees required from the applicant to bring proceedings concerning her action, was her right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article 6 § 1, respected?