Communicated on 9 July 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 41411/11 Renaldo BREGU against Albania lodged on 30 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Renaldo Bregu , is an Albanian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Tirana . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Matlija , a lawyer practising in Tirana .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

At the time of the events complained of, the applicant was unemployed. Since January 2010, he has been in receipt of a monthly unemployment allowance. For the last five months, the allowance amounted to 6,565 Albanian leks (“ALL”), approximately 46 euros (“EUR”).

Following the payment of the last unemployment allowance on 31 December 2010, the applicant sought to challenge before the domestic courts the low level of the allowance and complain about the fact that the allowance ceased to be paid after one year. The applicant considered that he had duly complied with his obligations towards the Employment Office ( “ Zyra e Pun ë si mit ” ) and that he had never declined any job offer. His continued unemployment was through no fault of his own.

However, the applicant could not lodge a civil action with the Tirana District Court owing to the high court fee, which was nearly double the amount of the monthly unemployment allowance namely ALL 12,000.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)

Articles 102 and 156 provide that court fees must be paid at the moment a civil action is lodged with the district court. Failing such payment, the judge, under Article 154 (a), may return the case file to the plaintiff. No other judicial action can be taken until compliance with this requirement.

Article 158 ( a ) provides that , dur in g the preliminary hearing , the court may decide to exempt a plaintiff from paying court fee s in cases provided for by law. Under Article 106 court fees may be borne by the defendant to the extent determined by the court.

2. The Legal Aid Act 2008 (law no. 10039 of 22 December 2008)

The Legal Aid Act, as in force at the material time, did not provide for any legal aid in the form of exemption from paying court fees.

In May 2013, following the Constitutional Court ’ s decision of 27 February 2013 (see below), the Legal Aid Act was amended in order to provide for an exemption from paying court fees, as one of the ways of granting legal aid.

3. The National Taxes Act 2008 (law no. 9975 of 28 July 2008)

Section 11 provides inter alia that court fees are determined by a joint order of the Ministry of Finance and the relevant authorities. It does not provide for any exclusion fro m court fees.

(a) The Joint order of Ministers of Finance and Justice of 2 March 2010 (“the 2010 joint order”)

The 2010 joint order required the payment of a court fee in the amount of 12,000 ALL in order to lodge a civil action seeking the nullity of legal acts ( padi për pavlefshmëri të veprimeve juridike ).

( b ) Constitutional Court ’ s decision of 27 February 2013

O n 27 February 2013 the Constitutional Court rul ed that compliance with the requirement under section 11 of the National T axes Act to pay court fees, even by persons having no financial means, did not constitute a breach of an individual ’ s right of access to court.

The dissenting opinion stated that there was a breach of an individual ’ s right of access to court as a result of the requirement to pay court fees, because domestic legislation did not provide for exemption from court fees in respect of persons having no financial means. It stated that the requirement to pay court fees was sine qua non for the continuation of the proceedings.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, owing to high court fees which were double the amount of his monthly unemployment allowance, he was unable to lodge a civil action to challenge his unemployment benefits .

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit domestic courts ’ case-law in support of their arguments.

2 . Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI , and Weissman and Others v. Romania , no. 63945/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ VII (extracts) ) ?