CASE OF FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIAJOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES TÜRMEN, MULARONI AND POPOVI Ć
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: July 31, 2007
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES TÜRMEN, MULARONI AND POPOVI Ć
We regret we are unable to agree with the majority, which found a violation of Article 6 §1 of the Convention in this case.
We observe that:
a) the amount of the contested fee was the equivalent of 2,200 EUR, a sum that cannot be considered disproportionate as such and given the value of the damages sought and the applicant ' s capacity (a football club of primary level);
b) it clearly appears from the file that the applicant did not prove before national jurisdictions its insolvency. On April 2003, the Tbilisi Regional Court refused to defer payment on the ground that “the applicant ' s request was not substantiated by evidence of insolvency”. In its cassation appeal of 5 January 2004, the applicant limited itself to state that “it had suspended its activities because of financial problems (near bankruptcy)”;
c) in January 2001, the applicant company had been paid by DINAMO FC a debt of USD 300,000= (EUR 236,000=).
Under these circumstances, we consider that the refusal by national jurisdictions to award the applicant ' s request for partial or full exemption from court fees is justified and does not amount to a denial of access to court.
We ' d like to make two additional remarks as to the arguments used by the majority to find a violation of Article 6 §1.
1) The main piece of evidence supporting the majority ' s arguments about the applicant ' s insolvency is the auditor ' s report of 15 March 2005, a paper prepared long after January 2004, when the final decision was adopted by the Supreme Court;
2) it is not for our Court to impose on national jurisdictions “to request parties more information” or “to try to obtain, either from the applicant or the competent authorities, any supplementary proof” in the examination of a civil case (see in this respect §§ 44, 45 and 46 of the judgment), the rule being that it is for the parties to adduce evidence and not for the courts to invite parties to do so. If parties do not substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence, they only have to blame themselves for the negative outcome of a case.
[1] Rectified on 24 January 2008: Judge Baka’s name, erroneously mentioned in the list of judges, was replaced by that of Judge Mularoni.
[2] Here and elsewhere, approximate conversions are given in accordance with the exchange rate of the United States dollars (USD), pounds sterling (GBP), Swiss francs (CHF) and Georgian laris (GEL) to euros (EUR) on 5 June 2007.