Published on 24 April 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 17271/21 I.W. against Poland and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 4 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants’ failure to pay the relevant court fees. Due to this failure the actions and/or appeals in civil proceedings to which they were parties were returned or rejected (thus not examined on the merits). In particular, the domestic courts held that the applicants’ requests for exemption from the obligation to pay those fees on account of their lack of funds were unfounded (see details in the appended table). The applicants complain that this resulted in the disproportionate restriction of their right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his/her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, §§ 66-67, 19 June 2001, and Wieczorek v. Poland , no. 18176/05, §§ 47 ‑ 49, 8 December 2009)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. Case name Introduction date

Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality

Representative’s name Location

Facts and relevant information, as submitted by the applicants

1.

17271/21 I.W. v. Poland 17/03/2021

I. W. 1972 Gdynia Polish

On 22/10/2018 the Gdynia District Court awarded the applicant around 10,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered due to her having been subjected to mobbing by her former employer. The applicant submits that she used that money to pay her debts, which arose due to her dismissal from work and subsequent inability to work, caused by depression. In December 2016 she was declared moderately disabled due to her mental state.

On 23/12/2019 the applicant lodged an action against her former employer and claimed around 55,000 euros in compensation for pecuniary damage resulting from mobbing and demanded an apology. She requested to be exempted from having to pay the court fees (some 2,800 euros) due to the lack of any financial means and her being unemployed. On 05/04/2020 the Gdańsk Regional Court, having questioned the applicant as to her finances, dismissed her request for exemption from court fees. On 28/08/2020 the same court dismissed her interlocutory appeal. Both panels questioned the credibility of the applicant’s statements and referred to the fact that the applicant should have saved some money from the compensation she had been awarded in 2018. They held that she had chosen to pay outstanding debts, instead of covering court fees, and thus did not deserve an exemption. On 23/11/2020 the same court ordered the return of her claim.

2.

36850/21 Korabik v. Poland 09/07/2021

Damian KORABIK 1996 Horyszów Polish

Jarosław JAROSZEWICZ-BORTNOWSKI Żary

On 22/10/2015 the applicant was hit by an unknown car and suffered multiple injuries, requiring a lengthy treatment. The Insurance Guarantee Fund agreed to pay the applicant roughly 4,400 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered. The applicant lodged an action against the Fund, claiming around 13,300 euros in additional compensation. On 25/08/2020 the Zamość District Court awarded him roughly 3,325 euros and dismissed the remainder of his claim. The applicant appealed against that judgment and requested to be exempted from paying the court fees (approximately 500 euros). On 23/11/2020 the Zamość Regional Court dismissed his request. On 10/12/2020 the same court rejected his request to have a reasoning of that decision drafted and served on him, and rejected his appeal. It held that the sum awarded by the District Court would inevitably be paid to the applicant, thus it would not be too burdensome for him to pay the court fee. On 07/04/2021 the same court dismissed his interlocutory appeal against the rejection of his appeal and rejected his interlocutory appeal against the refusal to exempt him from paying the court fees.

3.

51443/21 Titan Group Polska Sp. z o.o. v. Poland 08/10/2021

TITAN GROUP POLSKA SP. Z O.O. Wrocław Polish

Hugon MYCEK Wrocław

The applicant (a limited liability company) was a defendant in civil proceedings concerning the invalidation of a purchase contract. An injunction was granted and the applicant prohibited from disposing of or mortgaging its properties. On 24/06/2020 the Wrocław Regional Court granted the plaintiff’s action, invalidated the contract and ordered the applicant to carry the costs of trial (over 25,000 euros). The applicant appealed and requested an exemption from the court fees (over 44,000 euros). It indicated that it had tried to obtain a loan from a bank to cover the costs of appeal but was refused on account that it had lacked sufficient financial capacity to repay it. The applicant further indicated that its sole shareholder had also been denied a loan.

On 07/12/2020 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the request for exemption from the court fees. No reasoning was provided, and the ruling was not amenable to judicial review. On 22/01/2021 the same court rejected the applicant’s appeal as unpaid. It held that the applicant should have made savings, taken a loan or sold its properties. The court did not refer to the fact that all of the applicant’s properties were secured pursuant to an injunction and considered that documents submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate the grounds of refusal of a loan. The applicant’s interlocutory appeal against that ruling was dismissed by the same court on 08/04/2021. It held that the applicant’s sole shareholder owned a Bentley and had a house, and thus could have afforded to loan money to the applicant. The ruling was served on the applicant on 14/04/2021.

4.

57134/21 KÅ‚os v. Poland 10/11/2021

Joanna KŁOS 1987 Wrocław Polish

On 28/12/2020 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action against an insurance company. On 05/04/2021 the applicant appealed against that judgment and requested an exemption from the court fees (approximately 1,130 euros). She indicated that her monthly income amounted to some 1,000 euros and her monthly expenses significantly exceeded that sum. On 23/04/2021 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed her request. On 07/06/2021 the same court rejected her request to have a reasoning of that decision drafted and served on her and rejected her appeal. It held that her request for exemption from the court fees was unfounded, given that the applicant had prioritised other financial obligations over the court fees and thus disposed of assets allowing her to pay those fees. On 10/09/2021 the same court dismissed her interlocutory appeal.

5.

61364/21 Boczek v. Poland 10/12/2021

Waldemar BOCZEK 1964 Ruda ÅšlÄ…ska Polish

Grzegorz PELC Chorzow

On 30/01/2017 the applicant - a disabled person with a monthly income of around 440 euros - lodged an action against B. claiming some 15,000 euros. He was exempted from paying court fees exceeding 220 euros. On 30/03/2020 the Ruda Śląska District Court awarded the applicant approximately 2,000 euros and dismissed the remainder of his claim. On 08/06/2020 the applicant appealed against that judgment and requested an exemption from the court fees (roughly 400 euros). On 30/09/2020 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed his request. Its decision was not amenable to judicial review and contained no reasoning. On 14/01/2021 the same court rejected his appeal and held that the applicant should have made savings during the trial to cover the costs of a potential appeal. It also referred to the fact that the applicant did not include the sum awarded by the District Court in his declaration of means. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal and argued that he could not have predicted the outcome of the case, and, in any event, the defendant had not paid him the awarded sum. On 26/05/2021 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed his interlocutory appeal. No reasoning was provided. The ruling was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 11/06/2021.

6.

1238/22 Turczyn v. Poland 17/12/2021

Roman Józef TURCZYN 1955 Toruń Polish

Tomasz Marcin NOWICKI Lubicz

On 08/09/2020 the applicant lodged an action against E., claiming over 330,000 euros in contributions he had made for the defendant’s property and requested an exemption from the court fees (around 17,000 euros). He indicated, in particular, that the court fees were twice the amount of his annual earnings and that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly limited his income (he owned a nursery). On 05/02/2021 the Toruń Regional Court dismissed his request. It observed that the applicant owned several properties valued at almost 450,000 euros (which he could have sold) and did not apply for insolvency, thus his business must have been profitable. It further held that the applicant should have made savings to prepare for the trial. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal which was dismissed on 14/06/2021 by the same court (no reasoning was drafted). On 22/07/2021 his claim was returned (served on 17/08/2021).

7.

27772/22 Jochem v. Poland 23/05/2022

Jonatan JOCHEM 1982 Pszów Polish

On 30/08/2020 the applicant lodged an action against the State Treasury with the Rybnik District Court, claiming some 110,000 euros in compensation for the allegedly degrading conditions of his detention. On 23/12/2021 a court officer at the same court refused his request for exemption from the court fees (roughly 5,500 euros). It noted that the applicant was registered as unemployed, had no money and was subjected to enforcement of several debts. It further observed that the applicant had made no attempts over the preceding 1,5 year to find a job and make necessary savings. On 17/05/2022 the Rybnik Regional Court upheld the court officer’s ruling of 23/12/2021.

8.

33686/22 Orłowski v. Poland 15/06/2022

Leszek ORŁOWSKI 1977 Lublin Polish

On 26/08/2021 the applicant - a prisoner - lodged an action against the State Treasury seeking over 22,000 euros in compensation for the limitation of his visitation rights. He also requested to be exempted from paying the court fees (approximately 1,100 euros). The applicant indicated that he had been in prison for the past 16 years, was unemployed and had no savings. On 24/11/2021 a court officer at the Lublin Regional Court dismissed his request. He held that the applicant should have made savings or consider lodging his action after leaving the prison. On 15/02/2022 the Lublin Regional Court, having conducted an investigation into the applicant finances, upheld the ruling of the court officer of 24/11/2021. No reasoning was provided. On 19/04/2022 the applicant’s claim was returned as unpaid.